On Feb. 28, 2012, plaintiff Samuel Recio, 38, a metal recycler, was asked by Sattin Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Inc. to pick up and haul away scrap metal on the roof of a single-story, industrial building in Santa Ana, which was owned by Alliance of Abilities. Recio was dismantling an old air conditioning unit on the roof of the building when he tripped and fell backward through a plastic skylight. He subsequently fell 20 feet and landed on his left side, on the cement floor below. Recio sustained to his head, face, and chest. Recio sued Alliance of Abilities and Sattin Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Inc. Recio alleged that the defendants failed to repair and/or maintain the skylight, creating a dangerous condition. He also alleged that the defendants failed to warn of the alleged hazardous condition. Sattin Air Conditioning & Refrigeration ultimately settled out of the case. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the subject skylight was old, brittle and cracked and that its condition was concealed by roof sealant. Counsel also contended that the skylight was unguarded. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the building owner, Alliance of Abilities, failed to maintain the skylight in a safe condition. Counsel also contended that the roof had tripping hazards and no protective screens, guards, or warning signs for the skylight, all constituting dangerous conditions. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the law required that the skylight have a guard, which it did not have and which the building owner failed to provide. Counsel for Alliance of Abilities contended that the skylight at issue was open and obvious to all who worked on the roof. Counsel also contended that by hiring Sattin Air Conditioning & Refrigeration to work on the air conditioning unit, the duty to provide a safe workplace had transferred to that company. Alliance of Abilities’ counsel argued that Sattin Air Conditioning & Refrigeration had a duty to conduct a safety inspection of the work area prior to beginning a job so that it could provide a safe job site to all employees and subcontractors, which included Recio. Likewise, counsel argued that Recio owed a duty to himself and his workers to conduct a safety inspection and provide a safe job site., Recio sustained multiple fractures to his face, nine fractured ribs on his left side, and a fracture of the left scapula. He also sustained a traumatic brain injury. Recio was subsequently taken to a hospital, where he remained in a coma for three weeks and remained hospitalized for over a month. Recio claimed that he is left with mild cognitive impairment, including short-term memory loss and emotional lability, a condition of excessive emotional reactions and frequent mood changes. The plaintiff’s neurology, neuropsychology, and psychiatry experts testified about Recio’s brain injury and attributed it to the frontal lobe, where an injury can result in the same characteristics as Recio’s. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the defense’s neurology expert also testified about the brain injury, and acknowledged that significant trauma caused Recio’s condition. The defense expert also opined that all of Recio’s alleged harm was linked to the he sustained in the incident. Thus, Recio sought recovery of past medical costs and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. According to defense counsel, Recio also sought recovery of approximately $1.2 million in future medical costs.