At around 4:30 p.m. on Nov. 15, 2013, plaintiff Chon Ho Park, 68, a retired pharmacist and a non-English-speaking Korean immigrant, drove down the long driveway of his apartment complex on Kenmore Avenue, in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles. However, at the end of the driveway, Park noticed that the metal slide gate was acting erratically. He watched it open and close a few times, and called one of his landlords, Hyun Sook Oh, for instructions on what to do. Oh instructed Park to flip the switch on the motor box to turn the gate off so that Oh or the other landlord could evaluate the issue later. Park, while still on the phone, attempted to reach for the switch, but it was out of reach and sight. He then walked out to the exterior of the unit to look for the switch and noticed that the switch was located inside the motor box’s exterior plastic housing. As a result, Park waited for the gate to open and, while still on the phone with the landlord, reached through metal gate bars with his left, non-dominant arm to flip the switch. However, while his arm was through the bars, the gate began to close. As a result, Park’s wrist got caught in the closing metal bars, breaking the ulna and radius in his arm. Park sued the landlords at the complex, Sang Moon Oh and Hyun Sook Oh. Park alleged that the defendants were negligent in the maintenance of the metal slide gate, creating an unsafe condition. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the Ohs did not have a reasonable inspection system in place to discover and cure the defect. Park also claimed that Hyun Sook Oh asked him to reach through the bars in order to turn off the gate’s motor box and that as a result, he fractured his wrist. The plaintiff’s safety expert opined that the gate was unsafe and that the landlords did not have a reasonable inspection process in place. The expert also opined that the gate switch should have been placed a safe distance from the motor or that a mesh screen should have been placed on the gate to prevent a reach through accident, such as the one that had occurred in the subject incident. The defense’s mechanical engineering expert agreed that the location of the switch or placement of a mesh screen would have made the gate safer, but opined that that the Ohs reasonably maintained the gate, as the Ohs would hire a licensed gate repair company to inspect the gate each time there was an issue with it. Defense counsel argued that Park caused the accident by placing his arm through the bars of a moving gate. Thus, counsel argued that Park assumed the risk of injury. Defense counsel also argued the licensed gate company also contributed to the accident by not advising the Ohs of any safety issues with the gate and/or correcting it., Park suffered a comminuted fracture of hisleft, non-dominant arm’s distal ulna and radius. He subsequently presented to an emergency room later that day, but Park could not get cleared for surgery because of vitamin deficiencies and a lung condition. As a result, for an entire year, Park suffered through failed conservative treatment and a nonunion, which ultimately required surgery, consisting of an open reduction and internal fixation of the radius and ulna, in November 2014. Although both sides agreed that Park’s past medical care was reasonable and necessary, Park claimed that after the surgery, he continued to suffer pain, numbness, weakness, and tingling in his fingertips, which was the result of acute-onset carpal tunnel system, common with forearm fractures near the wrist. He also claimed that he suffers from intermittent pain that is dependent on his activities and the weather, in that he suffers more pain when it is colder or with more strenuous activities. Park further claimed that the use of his left hand has been diminished as a result of his and that he is still somewhat protective of it, in that he no longer uses his injured arm for such activities as opening doors and pulling out chairs. In addition, he claimed that he has been unable to hold his granddaughter since her birth for fear of dropping her and that he no longer cooks cultural, seasonal meals for his family, as he did in the past. Although the hardware remained in Park’s arm through trial, both the plaintiff’s and the defense’s medical experts recommended that Park undergo hardware removal surgery, which Park claimed he had agreed to undergo in the near future. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon, who specialized in hand surgery, opined that Park would need to undergo a hardware removal surgery to reduce the pain he was allegedly having in his arm. He also recommended a carpal tunnel release, which would resolve Park’s alleged numbness and tingling. The defense’s hand surgery expert agreed with both of the recommendations. Thus, Park sought recovery of $30,000 in past medical costs and $12,500 in future medical costs for the removal of the hardware and a carpal tunnel release. He also sought recovery of $750,000 in general damages for his past pain and suffering and $475,000 in general damages for his future pain and suffering. During trial, the parties stipulated that Park’s damages would not exceed $500,000 in exchange for a waiver of all costs.