On Dec. 19, 2008, at around 8:30 p.m., plaintiff John Davis Jr., 64, an attorney, was leaving his office on the 14th floor of a building at 595 Market Street in San Francisco and entered an elevator. When the elevator reached the lobby level, the doors opened and Davis started to walk out. However, the elevator car was not level with the lobby floor, as it was raised above the lobby floor, and Davis did not notice the leveling difference as walked out of the elevator. As a result, Davis fell and struck the lobby floor and a marble pillar located in front of the subject elevator. Davis then noticed that the doors of the subject elevator had failed to open completely. Building security subsequently cordoned off the elevator, took it out of service, and called Schindler Elevator Corp., which maintained the elevators at the building. A Schindler technician ultimately found that the cause of the elevator misleveling was that the DC rectifiers, which convert AC current to DC current, had burned out, which also caused three fuses to blow. Davis claimed to his neck, left shoulder and elbow, and right knee. Davis sued Schindler Elevator Corp., which provided maintenance for six months prior to the subject incident; 595 Market Street Inc. L.P., which owned the building (and was erroneously sued as Tishman Speyer); Tishman Speyer Properties L.P., which managed the building (and was erroneously sued as Tishman Speyer Properties Inc.); and Otis Elevator Co., which manufactured the elevator and provided maintenance from inception until six months before to the subject incident. Davis alleged that the defendants failed to properly repair and/or maintain the elevator, creating a dangerous condition. He also alleged that Otis Elevator was negligent for a defect in the elevator. However, Otis Elevator was ultimately dismissed from the case prior to trial, and the products liability claimed was subsequently dismissed. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against 595 Market Street Inc., Schindler Elevator and Tishman Speyer Properties for their alleged negligent maintenance of the elevator. Davis claimed that the elevator stopped about 22 inches higher than the lobby floor, causing him to fall and land face down approximately six to eight feet from the elevator. However, the plaintiff’s elevators expert opined that, based upon photographs, the elevator floor stopped between 14 and 14.5 inches above the lobby floor. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Schindler Elevator and Tishman Speyer Properties failed to inspect, monitor and maintain the subject elevator, as the DC rectifiers burned out. Counsel also contended that if the DC rectifiers were maintained, the elevator would not have stopped with a height difference between the elevator and the lobby floor. Schindler Elevator noted that during the six months of maintenance it provided, there had been no reported problems with the subject elevator that would give notice that the DC rectifiers were about to fail. Defense counsel argued that there was no maintenance to be performed on the DC rectifier and that there is no indication when DC rectifiers are about to fail. Thus, counsel contended that the DC rectifier simply wore out. Defense counsel also disputed how the accident occurred. Counsel argued that Davis failed to look when he stepped out of the elevator car and that as such, the building and Tishman Speyer were not negligent. Counsel also disputed Davis’ claim that when the elevator came to a stop, the doors began to open and that he exited before the doors were fully open. Defense counsel contended that without electrical power, the doors could not open on their own and it would be a mechanical impossibility for the elevator doors to be 3/4 or 4/5 of the way open when the elevator car is still above the landing floor. In addition, the defense’s elevators expert opined that, based upon photographs, the elevator floor was stopped only 12 to 12.5 inches above the lobby floor., Davis claimed that he sustained soft-tissue to his neck, left shoulder, left elbow and right knee. He subsequently underwent minimal treatment from the date of the accident until Jan. 12, 2012, at which time he underwent an elective Mumford’s procedure, which is a resection of the collar bone. At the same time, Davis also underwent an arthroscopic debridement for his pre-existing arthritic changes. Davis claimed that his medical bills amounted to $47,000, but the court only allowed Davis to present the amount actually paid by his insurance carrier to satisfy the bills, which was over $17,000. In addition, Davis sought recovery of $400,000 for his medical specials and general damages.