On Jan. 5, 2012, at approximately noon, plaintiff Dawna Holland, 49, a student, was having a picnic lunch with her 4-year-old grandson on the back porch of her Riverside home when a dog owned by Holland’s next door neighbor, Heather Self, appeared in her backyard. Holland claimed the dog, a German Shepherd/Doberman mix, began growling and acting in a menacing way while approaching and retreating from her and her grandson. Holland claimed that as a result, she put herself between her grandson and the dog, which began showing its teeth and had its hair up. She then picked up a shovel lying against the side of the house and began swinging it toward the dog in order to protect her grandson. In the process, Holland stepped on a porch step, but it collapsed and caused her to be thrown forward. On the way down, she threw the shovel and hit the dog. Holland claimed to her right shoulder and knee. Holland sued the dog’s owner, Self; and the landlords from whom she rented the home, Linda Goncher and Dana Barbour. Holland alleged that Self was negligent in the control of her dog, in violation of the California leash law. She also alleged that Goncher and Barbour were negligent for failing to repair the porch’s step, creating a dangerous condition. Holland claimed that soon after moving into the home, she sent Goncher and Barbour a notification in writing about the subject step on the back porch being loose and dangerous. She claimed the letter included the fact that a guest had injured himself on the step. She also claimed that, a month later, she sent another letter to the landlords reminding them that the step was still broken and dangerous. However, Holland alleged that despite her best efforts, Goncher and Barbour failed to have the step fixed, which resulted in the incident. In regard to Self’s dog, Holland claimed that prior to the incident, the dog would frequently escape Self’s yard, and run around unleashed and at large. She also claimed the dog would frequently go over the gates and end up in her backyard. Goncher and Barbour contended that they were aware of the complaint from Holland regarding the step and that Barbour was trying to coordinate a day to come inspect and fix the stairs, as well as fix some other cosmetic issues Holland complained about. However, they claimed that since it was the holiday season, they simply weren’t able to pick a date before the incident. Goncher and Barbour further claimed that Holland was at fault for using the step that she knew was dangerous. In addition, they claimed the step that collapsed was not the one Holland previously complained about and, as such, they did not have notice of that particular step. Self claimed the incident likely did not happen as alleged by Holland. She alleged she put up fencing and did everything she could to keep the dog contained in her yard. Self contended that, at best, her dog came into the yard and that Holland simply wanted to hurt the dog because she was sick of it getting onto her property. Thus, Self claimed Holland grabbed the shovel with the intent of hitting the dog and fell in the process., Holland’s husband drove her to a Kaiser urgent care center, where she complained of pain in her right knee and right shoulder. She was diagnosed with an injured rotator cuff of the right shoulder, and her right knee was noted to be bruised and became swollen. Holland ultimately underwent exploratory arthroscopic surgery on her right knee in October 2012, as well as underwent some physical therapy. She also underwent a surgical repair of her right shoulder’s rotator cuff in April 2014, followed by ongoing physical rehabilitation. Holland claimed despite having knee surgery, her right knee remains painful and swollen. She claimed that the cause of the ongoing swelling is unknown and that she is uncertain about her future course of treatment, but that it may include another exploratory arthroscopic procedure. Holland did not miss any work due to her , but she claimed a severe curtailment of her daily activities due to constant knee pain. Thus, Holland sought recovery of between $30,000 and $40,000 in past medical costs. She also sought recovery of damages for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Holland’s were minor, if anything, and that there was no evidence of a shoulder injury until nine months after the incident. Counsel also argued that neither the knee surgery nor the shoulder surgery was required and counsel noted that a rheumatologist who had seen Holland at Kaiser determined that Holland had no injury whatsoever.