On May 2, 2011, plaintiff Silvia Ayala-Salamat, 47, an operations manager for CBRE Property Management, was doing a closing property inspection on a warehouse where the existing tenant, JIT Transportation, was moving out. JIT had negotiated an early termination of the lease with a termination date of April 30, 2011 (a Saturday). According to JIT’s owner and general manager, they and a crew of JIT’s employees were at the building until late Saturday evening clearing out and cleaning up the building. Sometime before April 30, 2011, CBRE, the property’s manager, arranged with JIT to have a final inspection of the property on Monday, May 2, 2011. As the inspection proceeded into the warehouse, Ayala-Salamat made notes of things that needed to be repaired and approached a fence enclosure. In one corner of the warehouse, a chain link fence enclosure had been constructed by the tenant that occupied the space prior to JIT. Two vending machines were kept inside the enclosure when JIT occupied the space. As Ayala-Salamat approached the fenced enclosure, she went to open what she thought was a gate to the enclosure to make sure it was working properly. However, it turned out that what she tried to pull on was an anchor post that had originally been adjacent to the gate to the enclosure, but had been unbolted from the concrete floor, moved approximately 120 degrees, and left standing in an upright position. Thus, when Ayala-Salamat tried to open what she thought was a gate, the unbolted portion of the cyclone fence fell toward her, and the post struck her on the head. Ayala-Salamat sued JIT Transportation, alleging that JIT created a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Ayala-Salamat and her supervisor did not have a key to get into the property and had to wait for the JIT employees to open the building. Counsel contended that CBRE did not maintain a copy of the master key while a tenant was occupying the premises and the supervisor claimed that the owner of JIT only gave her the keys to the premises at the end of the inspection. Counsel further contended that Ayala-Salamat and her supervisor both claimed that the vending machines were still on the property at the time of the inspection. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that JIT still controlled the premises at the time of the incident. Counsel also asserted that it was undisputed that between the time that the JIT employees left the building on Saturday night and the time of the inspection on Monday afternoon, no one had access to the building except for JIT employees. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that as a result, it can only be concluded that JIT employees found that the vending machines were too wide for the cyclone fence door, or the exterior door that entered into the fenced enclosure, so they unbolted the post in order to remove the vending machines and just did not bother to reattach the post. Counsel contended that there was no way to tell that the post was not bolted to the ground and that by removing the post, as was done, it appeared to Ayala-Salamat and her supervisor that it was actually a gate. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that JIT was negligent since the owner of JIT and the general manager knew that there would be a final inspection the following Monday with CBRE employees conducting the inspection, but they failed to reattach the post and ensure a safe environment. JIT’s general manager claimed that he did not recall who opened the building on May 2, 2011. However, the owner of JIT claimed that he had driven to the CBRE offices that Monday morning and turned in the keys and that one of the CBRE women opened the building. In addition, JIT’s general manager and owner both claimed that the vending machines were not at the subject warehouse at the time of the incident and that machines had already been moved to their new office. Thus, defense counsel asserted that JIT had been completely moved into their new office and did not have control of the subject premises at the time of the incident., Ayala-Salamat claimed that she sustained a traumatic brain injury. She claimed that after she was struck on the head by the fence, she was dazed and stunned, but she thought she was okay. She claimed that as a result, she drove herself home after the subject incident, despite her supervisor’s request that she drive her to a hospital or home. However, Ayala-Salamat claimed that she does not remember the remainder of the inspection or driving herself home. Later that day, Ayala-Salamat experienced dizziness, nausea and vomiting, and neck pain. As a result, she went to the emergency room at Good Samaritan Hospital, in San Jose, where a CT scan of her head was read as normal. She then attempted to return to work, but found she could not tolerate the workplace due headaches and neck pain, as well as her inability to concentrate and focus. As a result, she was allowed to work at home four hours per day. Ayala-Salamat also claimed that she could not drive, which was a significant component of her job. Whereas she had no problem handling the multifaceted aspects of her job for the 20 years prior to her brain injury, she alleged that she now is overwhelmed by it all. Although she tried her best, and her employer tried to accommodate her, in August 2011, Ayala-Salamat’s employer had to replace her. Ayala-Salamat claimed that as a result of her traumatic brain injury, she suffers from depression, memory loss, an inability to concentrate and focus, impaired speech, headaches, photophobia, imbalance, and sensitivity to noise. In addition, the physicians who examined, evaluated, and treated her following the incident concluded that Ayala-Salamat was totally disabled from work. Thus, Ayala-Salamat sought recovery of $67,000 in past medical costs (through workers’ compensation), and approximately $700,000 in future medical costs for psychotherapy, cognitive therapy and medication. She also sought recovery of approximately $1.6 million in total lost wages. In addition, she sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed Ayala-Salamat’s future medical costs, and contended that Ayala-Salamat was not seriously injured.