On March 16, 2010, at around noon, plaintiff Robert Almes, a 59-year-old retired man, was exiting a children’s clothing store called Crackerjacks at 14 Glen Street in Oakland. When Almes stepped off the threshold to a single concrete step, which had been installed between the threshold and the sidewalk in 1998, he misstepped, lost his balance and fell. As a result, he claimed to his head and right knee. Almes sued the property owner, 4056 Piedmont Avenue LLC, and the operator of Crackerjacks, Elizabeth Helms. Almes alleged that the defendants failed to properly repair and/or maintain the area of his fall, creating a dangerous condition. The plaintiff’s code expert identified four code violations at the exit, including the lack of a landing, the lack of a railing, the lack visibility strips on the stair, and a lip of 0.5 inches at the threshold. The expert also testified that the store was cluttered inside and outside the exit, making the code violations even more dangerous. Defense counsel argued that Almes did could not identify what caused him to fall and, thus, could not prove the alleged code violations were a cause of his fall. Counsel also argued that Almes was comparatively negligent, as he had entered and exited the store seven times prior to the subject fall. In addition, defense counsel contended that Almes had knee laxity, which could explain the accident., Almes claimed he sustained a medial meniscus tear to his right knee and increased laxity in several knee ligaments. He also sustained a cut on his head. However, Almes was not treated at the scene nor was he taken to a hospital after the accident. The cut on Almes’ head ultimately healed and he first sought care several weeks after the accident, when he returned home to Las Vegas. His treating physician, an orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed the meniscal tear without an MRI and recommended conservative care with arthroscopic surgery. However, Almes declined steroid injections and surgery, alleging that his pre-existing heart issues, diabetes and hypertension made him not a surgical candidate. As a result, Almes’ total medical care consisted of four office visits, including three to his treating physician. Defense counsel contended that Almes failed to mitigate his damages by refusing to undergo a steroid injection to his knee, which could have reduced his alleged knee pain so that he could do physical therapy. Additionally, defense counsel contended that the right knee condition was due to pre-existing osteoarthritis and that Almes had sustained little, if any, injury in the fall.