On Sept. 9, 2010, plaintiff Manuel Martinez, 55, a truck driver, was walking through a Land O’ Lakes plant in Tulare, looking for an empty tanker truck to pick up and return to his employer’s yard. Martinez alleged that before entering the plant, he walked across an exit roadway to check in with a security guard shack manned by an employee of Securitas Security Services USA Inc. According to Martinez, security guard arms blocked the entrance and exit roadways, with the entrance side arms being manually operated and the exit side being automatically operated by a weight sensor in the roadway. Martinez claimed that just prior to crossing the roadway to check in with the guard, a truck passed by, causing the exit guard arm to be in the vertical position. After 6.5 seconds, the arm automatically lowered. Martinez alleged that as he approached the guard shack, he walked underneath the closing guard arm and was struck on his left shoulder as it lowered in a horizontal position. He claimed that he suffered a partially torn rotator cuff of the left shoulder and frozen-shoulder condition. Martinez sued both Securitas Security Services USA Inc. and Land O’Lakes Inc. Prior to trial, Martinez settled with Land O’Lakes Inc. for the amount of $100,000. However, Land O’Lakes Inc., which was not present at trial to offer a defense, remained on the verdict sheet because Securitas directed liability to the company. At trial, Martinez’s counsel argued that the Securitas guard failed to be attentive and flip a kill switch inside the guard shack to stop the guard arm from descending before it struck Martinez in the shoulder. The plaintiff’s retained safety expert opined that the Securitas guard failed to follow the company’s policies and procedures in being attentive at all times. The expert further opined that had the guard been attentive, the guard would have observed Martinez and activated the kill switch to prevent the security arm from striking Martinez. Counsel for Securitas maintained that Martinez was comparatively negligent for walking under the guard arm and putting himself in a dangerous position. Counsel further faulted Land O’ Lakes for allegedly failing to correct a dangerous condition on their property. Securitas’ counsel further asserted that as property owner, Land O’Lakes had a duty to maintain the premises free of any dangerous conditions. Counsel for Martinez argued that it was Securitas that had control over the security shack. According to Martinez’s attorney, this theory was supported by a Securitas supervisor, who admitted that Securitas controlled the area of the guard shack, and that Securitas was to report and handle any potential hazards. Martinez’s counsel also cited the testimony of a Land O’Lakes official, who allegedly testified that Securitas had authority to control the area and address any potential hazards. Securitas reiterated that it was Land O’Lakes’ property and it was Land O’Lakes that had the final decision to respond to any said hazards., Immediately after the incident, Martinez presented to a workers’-compensation medical facility, where he was diagnosed with a contusion of the left shoulder. He was then referred to an orthopedist, who, via an MRI, diagnosed him with a partially torn rotator cuff. Martinez subsequently consulted weekly with the physician and treated with pain medication. In January 2011, Martinez underwent an arthroscopic procedure for his shoulder injury, which was followed by several months of physical therapy and home exercises. Martinez developed scar tissue at the surgical site and was later diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) in August 2011, after presenting to a different orthopedic surgeon. With administration of pain medication and a steroid injection unsuccessful, surgery was recommended; however, due to Martinez’s diabetes, the surgery was delayed. In September 2012, Martinez underwent surgical manipulation and arthroscopic surgery to clean up the scar tissue. He further treated with postoperative physical therapy for several months, followed by additional home exercises. Thus, Martinez sought recovery of $32,646 in past medical costs. The plaintiff’s retained expert in orthopedic surgery related Martinez’s and treatment to the accident. Martinez, who had stopped working at the time of the accident, claimed that he hopes to resume working in three to six months. Thus, he sought recovery $117,000 in past lost earnings. In addition, Martinez claimed that he continues to experience pain and limited range of motion in his shoulder, which has prevented him from pursuing his hobbies of golfing and bowling. Thus, he sought recovery of an unspecified amount of noneconomic damages for his past and future pain and suffering. The defense’s retained expert in orthopedic surgery conceded to the cause of Martinez’s and treatment. However, the defense’s expert testified that Martinez was embellishing and exaggerating his current complaints.