On May 12, 2009, the plaintiff, a 7-year-old second grade student named Gretel, was directed by employees of her school to go through a gate located at the south end of the campus. Subsequently, the gate was pushed open and several fingers on Gretel’s hand were partially amputated and/or severed. Gretel sued the school and the installer of the gate, La Habra Fence Co. Inc. Gretel claimed that the school negligently supervised her and that La Habra improperly designed and installed the gate. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the subject gate was improperly designed with a lack of a proper pinch point or other protections that would have prevented the gate from opening. Thus, counsel asserted that the subject gate unsuitable for pedestrian traffic. Plaintiff’s counsel further asserted that rather than design a proper gate for the dual purpose of pedestrians and vehicles, La Habra designed a gate that was safe only for the entry and exit of vehicles. In addition, counsel asserted that despite various other solutions being available, La Habra installed the gate in such a way that it was left with a large gap in its hinge mechanism and without proper pinch point protections installed. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that due to the hinge and size of the gate used, the subject gate was hazardous for young children. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the school was solely charged with the supervision of its first grade children, including Gretel. Counsel contended that as the first grade class approached the subject gate, Gretel and other children were asked to hold open the gate. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the holding open of the subject gate by the children was a common occurrence and even described as a student “reward” for good behavior in class. Counsel also noted that Gretel was positioned outside the gate, near the office, in the proximity of the pinch point of the gate at the time of the accident. However, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the other first grade students were unsupervised and closed the gate on the apparent instruction of an older eighth grade student, causing Gretel’s injury. Thus, counsel asserted that the school was negligent for not supervising its students. Defense counsel contended that the gate was properly designed and installed, and that the children were properly supervised. Counsel asserted that the accident was merely a chance occurrence and that Gretel was responsible for her own by placing her hand in a position of danger., The several fingers on Gretel’s hand were partially amputated, as they were severely injured in the accident. Gretel also claimed emotional distress from the incident. Thus, Gretel sought recovery of $129,792.01 in medical costs and $50,000 to $75,000 in future medical costs. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering.