In October 2013, plaintiff Charles Lane, a construction superintendent in his 50s, was at an On The Border restaurant in Mission Valley. As he was eating his chicken tortilla soup in a soup bowl, he bit into a ceramic chip from a bowl that had fallen into the soup. Lane claimed dental . Lane sued the franchisor, Dos Gringos Inc., and the franchisee, On The Border Mission Valley Restaurant LP (which was initially erroneously sued as “On The Border Mexican Grill and Cantina”). Lane alleged that the defendants were negligent for allowing the presence of a foreign object in his soup. Defense counsel initially claimed that the defendants did not know the origin of the ceramic piece and/or how the ceramic piece found its way into the soup. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that in an employee’s deposition, she admitted that she had a conversation with a manager on the night of the subject incident about finding a bowl with a chip in it. As a result, the defendants stipulated to liability one week prior to trial., Lane broke his bridge at tooth numbers two, three, four, five and six, which came out. He also fractured tooth number 14 and sustained a laceration to his gums on one side. Lane was subsequently taken by ambulance to an emergency room. Lane claimed that after the incident, he had trouble eating for two weeks, but dealt with the pain. He alleged that, thereafter, he would only chew on one side of his mouth, which he found was easier to chew on than the other side. However, a year later, Lane presented to an expert prosthodontist. Over the following seven or eight months, Lane underwent corrective surgeries, including the placement of a new bridge and crowns. Lane claimed that after the corrective surgeries, he had no more problems. Thus, Lane sought recovery of approximately $32,321 in past medical costs and an unspecified amount of damages for his past pain and suffering. Defense counsel questioned why Lane would wait a year to seek treatment for his . Counsel also contended that Lane already had extensive, pre-existing damage to his mouth that had nothing to do with the defendants or the incident. Thus, counsel argued and that the defendants should not be held to pay for damage that was already there and present. In addition, defense counsel argued that if any compensation is awarded, the award should be limited to the emergency room visit, where Lane received treatment of the laceration only. The defense’s general dentistry expert opined that it was physically impossible for Lane to bite down on a ceramic chip twice, as Lane had alleged, as no one who sustained an injury while biting down would bite down again.