On Dec. 11, 2012, plaintiff Carlos Salazar, 46, an electrician, was at a construction site for his second day of work when he fell into a trench dug by Cosco Fire Protection Inc. Salazar fell approximately four feet and allegedly sustained to his chest. Salazar sued Cosco Fire Protection Inc. and the general contractor, Cannon Constructors (which was initially erroneously sued as “Cannon Constructors South Inc.”) Salazar alleged that Cannon Constructors and Cosco Fire Protection wear each negligent for failing to ensure the trench was covered. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that as the general contractor, Cannon Constructors had an overall responsibility to ensure safety on the job site, but that it failed to cover the trench at the subject location, even though there was testimony that Cannon Constructors had ensured that other portions of the trench line were covered. Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that even though Cosco Fire Protection dug the trench, it failed to ensure it was covered before going home for the day. Counsel contended that as a result, Salazar fell in the uncovered section of the trench. The plaintiff’s safety expert opined that the trench posed a safety hazard and, thus, should have been covered or barricaded. The expert also testified that defendants were in the best position to cover or barricade the trench. Cannon Constructors admitted fault at trial, but sought allocation of fault amongst it, Cosco Fire Protection, Salazar and Salazar’s employer. Cosco Fire Protection denied liability and claimed that Salazar was negligent for being inattentive. The defense’s construction and general contracting experts opined that Salazar was responsible for his own safety on the job site. They also opined that Salazar should have seen the trench and/or should have known the trench was there., Salazar sustained three rib fractures on the left-side and a ruptured spleen. He was subsequently transported to a hospital, where he remained for five days. Salazar claimed that the nerves running underneath the fractured ribs were irritated by the injury and displaced inside the fracture lines, creating a condition called intercostal neuritis, a condition wherein the nerves under the ribs are irritated after something like a rib fracture, causing ongoing pain. Salazar was unable to work as he spent eight months healing at home. He eventually returned to work full time, where he ultimately received a raise and promotion. However, Salazar claimed he continues to suffer pain in his ribs with bending, lifting, pulling, crawling and reaching, as well as during sleep. He alleged that as a result, he takes Advil multiple times a day. Salazar further claimed that his condition is permanent and will cause him lifelong rib pain and that he works through his pain every day so that he could go to work and be with his family, including his three children. The plaintiff’s pain management expert opined that, in addition to the ruptured spleen and fractured ribs that were originally diagnosed, Salazar suffers from intercostal neuritis. The expert directly related the condition to Salazar’s fall into the trench. Thus, Salazar sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. (He waived his past medical costs, and the parties stipulated to his past lost earnings.) Defense counsel disputed Salazar’s alleged ongoing nerve pain due to intercostal neuritis and argued that Salazar’s should have healed by now. Counsel also contended that Salazar has continuously worked full time as an electrician without any work restrictions or accommodations since returning to work nine months after the accident. Defense counsel further contended that Salazar had, in fact, been promoted after the accident, earning more money than he had earned prior to the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that defense counsel did not call their medical expert at trial to rebut any of the plaintiff’s pain management expert’s testimony.