On the morning of Jan. 17, 2010, plaintiff Bach Minh Le, 60, a body shop owner, went to the Manila Oriental Market in San Jose. After taking a shopping cart from the cart area in front of the store, she backed out with the cart and was struck in the back of her right knee by a row of adjoined carts, which were being pushed by a store employee. Le claimed an injury to her right knee/leg. Le sued Quach & Lien LLC, which was doing business as Manila Oriental Market. Le alleged that the defendant was liable for its employee’s general negligence. Specifically, she claimed that the employee should have paid better attention while pushing the carts. Defense counsel argued that Le was comparatively at fault for the accident by backing out of the cart area while not looking where she was going., Le was taken from the scene of the accident by ambulance and brought to an emergency room, where she underwent an X-ray and was diagnosed with a contusion to the back of her right knee. Le then followed up with her primary care physician and treated the contusion with ice and Tylenol. She also claimed she took some Chinese medical supplements over the next two years to treat pain. In March 2012, Le accompanied her husband to a chiropractor, and claimed the physician noted a slight limp in her right leg. As a result, Le was referred to an orthopedic surgeon and underwent an MRI, which revealed a lateral meniscal tear in her right knee. In October 2012, she underwent arthroscopic surgery on her right knee. She later received two cortisone injections to treat pain. Le claimed she still experiences pain and discomfort in her right knee, restricting her mobility and requiring her to walk with a cane. She also claimed she is limited in her daily functions, including cooking and entertaining guests. Thus, Le sought recovery of $2.5 million in total damages, including roughly $30,000 in past medical costs and an unspecified amount for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Le only suffered a contusion from the accident, which was properly treated and had already resolved. Counsel argued that Le’s torn lateral meniscus was not caused by the subject incident, as there was no mechanism of injury and the impact of the cart could not have caused a torn lateral meniscus. Defense counsel further argued that Le had a gap in treatment of over two years at the time the tear was diagnosed.