At around 9 p.m. on May 3, 2010, plaintiff Maria Portillo, 34, a dental assistant, was walking on an exterior concrete pathway leading from the street to her apartment in a single family residence in Pacifica when she tripped and fell. As she fell forward, Portillo put out her left arm to brace her fall and injured her arm. Portillo sued the owner of the residence, Paul Gossman, alleging that Gossman failed to repair and/or maintain the pathway, creating a dangerous condition. Portillo claimed that she rented her apartment for five or six years and that during that time, the concrete squares that made up the pathway, which was constructed in the 1950s or so, were not painted or sealed. She also claimed that there was insufficient lighting and that there should have been an exterior lighting fixture placed to light the pathway. Portillo’s friends testified that they almost fell on the pathway due to its condition. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the stairway and the construction of the pathway constituted a dangerous condition. The plaintiff’s expert accident reconstruction engineer opined that there was a dangerous condition made by the pathway and that the lighting was inadequate. Defense counsel argued that the pathway was in good condition, with nothing cracked or broken, and with no crumbling, and that it was not dangerous. Counsel contended that the concrete design of the pathway had been in the same condition for 50 years and that there were no incidents of a trip or fall in that location during that time. Counsel also contended that Portillo was well aware of the lighting and the location of the pathway, as she had resided there for over six years, and that Portillo crossed the same pathway leaving and returning to her apartment many hundreds of times, all without incident. Thus, defense counsel argued that Portillo was at least comparatively at fault for failing to avoid an open and obvious condition and that Portillo’s liability was substantial. The defense’s expert construction consultant opined that the lighting was adequate, that the stairs were in good condition, and that that the pathway was not unreasonably dangerous. The expert also opined that the stairway had been well constructed and used and that both the pathway and stairs were not left in a dangerous condition., As Portillo fell forward, she put out her left arm to brace her fall and sustained a significant fracture of her left, non-dominant elbow. An ambulance subsequently came to the scene and transported her to a hospital. Portillo then underwent three surgical procedures, including a complicated open reduction and internal fixation, during which hardware was placed, within a week of the fall. However, part of the hardware was removed a year later and the rest of the hardware was removed about six months after that. Portillo claimed she suffered from thoracic outlet syndrome and a nerve injury as a result the elbow fracture. She claimed that her condition affected her left, non-dominant arm and hand, but that the condition resolved within a year of the incident. However, she claimed that due to both the fracture and nerve injury, she suffered limitations of her daily living. She alleged that due to weakness, she was not adept at doing her work as a dental assistant at a private dental practice because she needed to use both hands to assist the dentist, even if she was chairside. Portillo claimed that she continued to work even though it was recommended that she stop working in 2014 and that as a result, she was laid off in November 2015 as a result of her . She maintained that she wanted to be a dental hygienist, but that she was unable to pursue that position for future work because of her . The parties agreed that Portillo’s past medical costs totaled $75,700. However, the plaintiff’s physicians opined that Portillo would need some additional therapy from time to time and presented a life care plan, opining that Portillo’s past and future loss of income would total $1,020,900. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Portillo $1,096,600 in economic damages, plus a reasonable amount of non-economic damages for Portillo’s past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that while $75,700 was reasonable for Portillo’s past medical costs, Portillo healed well after her surgeries and would not require much, if any, additional treatment. Counsel also argued that Portillo’s position was terminated shortly before trial because the practice was sold to another dentist. Thus, defense counsel asked the jury to render a defense verdict, but that if it found Gossman liable, it should also find that Portillo had substantial comparative fault for the open and obvious condition. Counsel argued that based on that, $12,400 to $38,500 would be an appropriate award for Portillo.