On Sept. 23, 2014, plaintiff Phyllis Barnett, 85, was walking in Westfield Culver City, a shopping mall inCulver City, when she tripped and fell on bump on a ramp that was allegedly concealed by geometric carpeting. Barnett claimed to her left hip. Barnett sued the operator of the shopping mall, Culver City Mall LLC (which was initially erroneously sued as Westfield Group). He alleged that Culver City Mall failed to maintain the area, creating a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the subject bump on the ramp was unsafe, violated the applicable building code, and caused Barnett to fall. Counsel contented that Culver City Mall was negligent for failing to maintain the floors of the shopping center in a reasonably safe condition and that it breached its duty of care to its customers by keeping a concealed bump on the floors where customers walk. Counsel also contended that Culver City Mall failed to inspect the ramp where the bump was concealed on the floor of the shopping center when it knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that concealed bumps on the floor created an unreasonable risk of harm to its customers in the areas where customers walk. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that Culver City Mall failed to warn Barnett and other patrons at the shopping center of the danger presented by the presence of the bump on the floor. In addition, counsel contended that Culver City Mall failed to install and/or block off the area where the bump on the floor was located and failed to include a handrail for patrons walking up the ramp from the parking area, as opposed to only having a rail on the downward direction of the ramp. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Culver City Mall failed to otherwise exercise due care. Defense counsel argued that the subject ramp, which was constructed over 20 years before Culver City Mall purchased the mall, was safe, an open obvious condition, and did not violate the building code., Barnett claimed she suffered a fracture of the left hip and she was subsequently taken to a hospital immediately after the fall. Two days later, she underwent a hemiarthroplasty and was given opioid medication. Barnett claimed that she suffered from an acceleration and/or an initiation of dementia following the surgery and use of the opioid medication. As a result, she currently lives at home and is being cared for by relatives. Thus, Barnett sought recovery of $700,000 in future economic damages from 2017 to 2022, including future medical expenses in the amount $4,000 per year and attendant care in the amount of $112,700 per year. She also sought recovery of non-economic damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Barnett did not fracture her hip, but, rather, sustained a spontaneous fracture as she encountered the ramp. Counsel also argued that Barnett made an excellent recovery from her hip fracture and that Barnett’s later development of dementia was totally unrelated to the incident. Specifically, defense counsel argued that the subject incident did not cause or accelerate Barnett’s dementia.