On July 13, 2013, plaintiff Kelly Higashi, 45, a homeowner at Birchwood Townhomes, in Alhambra, and a board member of the Birchwood Homeowners Association, agreed to help Ed Medina, the president of the Birchwood Homeowners Association, remove and replace fascia boards (eaves) at the top of a second story condominium complex. Medina and his grandson had previously erected a scaffold to accomplish the task of removing and replacing the boards, but that when Higashi arrived to assist in the removal of the eaves, he found that he could not quite reach the eaves from the top of the scaffold. As a result, Higashi brought a ladder to the top of the scaffold and elected to stand on the ladder to remove the eaves. However, when he was allegedly attempting to remove the first fascia board, he lost his balance and fell two stories to the concrete below. Higashi sustained to his face, skull, brain, and vision. Higashi sued Medina and Alhambra Birchwood Townhomes Homeowners Association Inc. Higashi alleged that the defendants were negligent for the erection of the scaffold and that the defendants’ actions constituted violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and of the California Labor Code. Higashi claimed that he was standing on the ladder that was placed on top of the scaffold when he lost his balance and fell. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the scaffold violated a number of OSHA regulations, in that it was not flanked properly, had insufficient guardrails, and had no top rail at the proper height for the working conditions. Counsel further contended that since Medina was acting as president of the homeowners association board at the time the scaffold was erected, the Birchwood Homeowners Association was also responsible for the violation of OSHA regulations and his . Plaintiff’s counsel contended that erecting and working on a scaffold required a contractor’s license, pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 7026, but that Medina did not have a contractor’s license, even though he was performing work that required a contractor’s license. Thus, counsel contended that, at the time of the accident, Higashi was technically an employee of the homeowners association, rather than an independent contractor, pursuant to California Labor Code § 2750.5. However, after filing the lawsuit, plaintiff’s counsel determined that the Birchwood Homeowners Association carried no workers’ compensation coverage that would be able to remedy Higashi’s . As a result, plaintiff’s counsel contended that, pursuant to California Labor Code § 3706, an employee-related injury is presumed to result from employer negligence, where the employer carried no workers’ compensation insurance at the time of injury, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the employer to prove lack of negligence. In addition, counsel asserted that Higashi’s employer in the subject situation was stripped of any comparative negligence, assumption of risk, or co-employee negligence defenses and that the combination of the statutes essentially held the defendants strictly liable for Higashi’s . Defense counsel contended that Higashi made his own decision to use a ladder on the top level of the scaffold and that Higashi was 100 percent at fault since he choose to use a ladder on top of the scaffolding. However, counsel asserted that Higashi was actually not on the scaffold at all at the time of his fall, but, rather, had climbed onto the roof and became dizzy, which caused him to fall. Thus, defense counsel asserted that any OSHA violations were inconsequential because they would not have prevented Higashi from falling off the roof. Counsel further asserted that any negligence on the part of Medina was not a substantial factor in causing Higashi’s and that Higashi was actually 100 percent at fault becoming dizzy and falling off the roof., Higashi sustained 13 fractures to his face and skull, and was subsequently taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Huntington Memorial Hospital, in Pasadena. He was then admitted to the Intensive Care Unit, where he spent over 40 days recovering. Higashi ultimately underwent six different surgical procedures to repair the intricate fractures. Higashi claimed that he suffered a traumatic brain injury, resulting in various cognitive issues, including a loss of his vision and double vision. Thus, he sought recovery of $430,453.10 in past medical costs, and unspecified amounts for future medical costs and lost earnings. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel did not seriously dispute the severity of Higashi’s alleged .