On Jan. 10, 2015, plaintiff Shernia Garlick, 31, was on her way to work at an office building located at Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue, in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles. As she entered the office building, Garlick slipped and fell, fracturing her left elbow. Garlick sued the owner of the office building, Hudson Pacific Properties Inc. Garlick alleged that Hudson Pacific failed to properly maintain the premises, creating a dangerous condition. Hudson Pacific subsequently initiated a third-party action against the cleaning company that employed the person who mopped the floor, Metro Services Group. Hudson Pacific initially maintained that Metro Services Group was negligent, but it ultimately dropped the claim against Metro Services Group prior to trial. Garlick claimed the floor inside the office building’s granite entrance was wet, as it had been mopped two to three seconds before she walked into the building. She also claimed that there was a yellow “wet floor” sign on the sidewalk, located 14-feet from the building’s entrance. Garlick’s counsel argued that the entrance constituted a dangerous condition because the “wet floor” sign was on a public sidewalk, instead of in the private entrance, and that placing the warning 14-feet away was too far to constitute notice. Counsel also argued that the building had, without explanation, changed its mopping time from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m., when it was the highest foot traffic time of the day and when Garlick had entered the building. Garlick’s counsel further argued that Hudson Pacific was negligent for the lack of a nonslip strip or mat, for not roping off the area, and/or for not adding nonslip liquid to the cleaning solution. Defense counsel argued that the “wet floor” sign, bucket, and the person mopping the floor all placed Garlick on notice of the wet floor. Counsel also noted that Garlick’s co-workers — one of which was walking directly ahead of Garlick and one of which was walking behind Garlick — did not fall. Counsel also noted that a janitor who was behind the worker did not fall. Thus, defense counsel argued that because no one else slipped, the allegedly wet floor did not cause Garlick to fall and that Garlick actually fell as a result of wearing high heels., Garlick sustained a comminuted fracture of the distal humerus of the left, non-dominant elbow. She was subsequently taken by ambulance to a local emergency room. Garlick ultimately underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery to repair the fracture with the implantation of two pins. At the time of the fall, Garlick had an 8-month-old child, whom she was nursing and would have nursed for an additional four months. However, Garlick claimed that she could not take painkillers and had to endure agonizing pain for four months in order to avoid poisoning her milk and baby with the painkillers. The plaintiff’s treating doctor opined that Garlick’s pain was intermittently between zero and nine, on a scale of one to 10, depending on her activities. He also opined that Garlick will eventually require hardware removal surgery at a cost of $15,000. Thus, Garlick sought recovery of $10,589 in past medical costs and an unspecified amount of future medical costs, which included $15,000 for the future hardware removal surgery. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. The defense’s orthopedics expert opined that Garlick does not need future surgery.