On April 24, 2010, plaintiff Suzanne Pacheco, 19, was watching movies with several friends at the Hamilton Avenue apartment complex in San Jose. She had never been to the complex before that evening, and she and her underage friends were consuming vodka within the confines of the apartment. Later on, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Pacheco changed her clothes to spend the night, and reached down into her purse to answer a phone or grab socks, when she stumbled and fell out of the window behind her. As a result, Pacheco fell three stories to the concrete sidewalk and lost consciousness. An ambulance subsequently transported her to a hospital, where she was diagnosed with severe head and determined to have a blood alcohol content of 0.248, which is over three times the legal limit. Pacheco sued the owners of the apartment complex, Spieker Companies Inc., and Richard and Catherine Spieker, both individually and doing business as Hamilton Apartments. Pacheco also sued EPM General Contracting Inc., which was the window installation contractor that had worked with Spieker Companies on dozens of other projects. Pacheco claimed that the large, sliding window that she fell out of had a sill just 11 inches above the floor and was not visible behind the tall, hanging blinds, which were shut. Thus, she claimed that the large, sliding window, coupled with the excessively low and concealed windowsill, caused her accident. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that upon investigation, it was learned that Spieker Companies had been warned of the potential dangers of the low windowsills in the complex, including receiving a recommendation from the live-in manager, who stated that families with children should only live on the first floor to avoid the potential dangers of the windowsill on the second and third floors. Counsel also contended that the manager recognized the danger immediately after EPM installed the new, full, sliding windows two years prior to the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that residents of the apartment complex also complained of the low sill and that an employee of Spieker Companies warned management of the danger, but was subsequently fired despite the fact that he was the “Employee of the Year” for his dedication and loyalty. Thus, counsel asserted that Spieker Companies ignored the employee and tenant warnings, and refused to take responsibility for Pacheco’s . In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that EPM was negligent because, two years earlier, it had replaced the existing windows, which previously had fixed bottoms with full sliders, as the original fixed bottom design was meant to prevent falls when the windows were open. Spieker Companies claimed that Pacheco’s accident was caused by her drunken state and significantly emphasized that her BAC was 0.248. It also claimed that the windows met code at the time they were installed and that the current code upgrade did not apply to replacement windows of this design., Pacheco suffered blunt force trauma to her head and lost consciousness. She was subsequently transported by ambulance to a hospital, where she was diagnosed with skull fractures, including a diastatic fracture of the left coronal suture, extending down to the squamosal suture and temporal bone; bilateral temporal bone fractures; a comminuted fracture of the bilateral sphenoid sinuses and right greater wing. She also sustained a comminuted fracture of the C5 vertebral body and fractures of left C5 lamina. Pacheco was also diagnosed with a large, left frontotemporal epidural hematoma, resulting in a traumatic brain injury. In addition, it was determined that Pacheco was suffering from diabetes insipidus, which is a condition characterized by excessive thirst and excretion of large amounts of severely diluted urine, regardless of the amount of fluid intake. Pacheco was initially reported to have a Glasgow Coma Score of 5, which improved to 8 later in the hospital. As a result, she remained hospitalized for four weeks and then underwent extensive therapy at the brain injury clinic. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Pacheco had previously graduated high school in June 2009 with a 3.38 grade point average and was recommended for a Summer Health Institute Program based on her academic record. Counsel also contended that Pacheco had already made the Dean’s List at Hartnell College and that she was planning on a career as a cardiac nurse. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that after the accident, the Department of Social Security determined that Pacheco was disabled as a result of her head . Thus, counsel asserted that Pacheco’s ongoing future wage loss would be in excess of $2 million. Counsel also asserted that Pacheco’s Howell medical costs amounted to $350,000. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Pacheco would require modest damages for her future medical care, but contended that Pacheco would do best in a group home setting to take the responsibility off of her parents, whom Pacheco lived with.