On Nov. 16, 2008, plaintiff James Von Normann, 25, who worked in sales, was found in the parking lot of the Newport Channel Inn in Newport Beach having suffered a head injury. A hospital blood draw determined his blood alcohol concentration to be 0.267, more than three times the legal limit to drive. Three weeks later, when Von Normann emerged from a coma, he had no memory of how he came to be on the ground and there were no witnesses. Von Normann sued Newport Channel Inn, alleging that the hotel was negligent in the maintenance of its property. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that Von Normann fell over a second floor balcony railing, which was illegally low by 8 inches. Lacking any witness testimony, plaintiff’s counsel relied on circumstantial evidence to prove that Von Normann fell from the balcony, including biomechanical evidence that Von Normann’s shin abrasions and ankle bruising could only have occurred by the scraping the skin over a railing. The plaintiff also claimed that the hotel had suppressed the one “eyewitness” to the fall, by not preserving surveillance video of the scene. The defense focused on Von Normann’s admitted intoxication. Defense counsel argued that Von Normann did not fall from the second-floor, and therefore any code violation did not cause his . In support of this point, the defense argued that the only blood found at the scene was on the first floor walkway and many feet away from a point on the balcony where Von Normann allegedly fell. Defense counsel further stressed that Von Normann had checked-out of the hotel the morning before the fall. The parties stipulated to bifurcate the case., Paramedics found Von Normann unresponsive with a glasgow coma scale of 9. He was taken to the Western Medical Center in Santa Ana for his . He sustained skull fractures and a resultant severe traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff’s counsel presented evidence that the nature of Von Normann’s skull fractures required a fall from significant height. Von Normann’s traumatic brain injury was evidenced from various MRIs. His counsel noted that Von Normann had suffered a mild post-concussion traumatic brain injury only nine months prior during a skateboard fall. Radiological studies from that injury showed that he had suffered some brain damage. Experts testified that, as a result of severe traumatic brain injury, Von Normann’s brain is shrinking and he is suffering from dementia. Plaintiff’s experts David Patterson, Jeffrey Schaeffer, Les Zackeler and Ron Fisk testified that Von Normann will require 24-hour supervision for the remainder of his life. Approximately nine weeks before trial, Von Normann entered a residential rehabilitation program to provide alcoholism assistance to those with brain . Von Normann claimed that he will never work again. He did not testify during the damages phase of the trial. The plaintiff asked the jury to find the defendants 85 percent at fault. The defense argued that Von Normann’s head injury was caused instead by a ground level fall due to his own intoxication. The defense presented the testimony of their expert in kinesiology, who testified that research he reviewed showed that a fall from the second floor always results in fracturing more than just the skull, while Von Normann only fractured his skull. The defense argued that Von Normann was capable of performing activities of daily living, noting that he still showered, shaved and, until shortly before trial, drove himself to school, where he was studying to become a personal trainer. The defense focused on Von Normann’s job history post-accident, in which he was employed by several different companies. Further, the defense argued that Von Normann’s preceded this accident because of the skateboard fall nine months earlier. Defense counsel asserted that Von Normann’s brain were from that fall. Finally, the defense focused on a treating neurologist’s report which stated that Von Normann only suffered “mild” cognitive deficits. The defense asked the jury to find that their negligence was not a cause of the plaintiff’s . Plaintiff’s counsel noted that on cross-examination the defense’s kinesiology expert conceded that his testimony was inaccurate and that some of the research he used showed persons falling from the second floor and only suffering skull fractures.