On April 19, 2013, plaintiff Kulvir Kaur, 49, a homemaker, drove to a HomeGoods store, in Fresno, to return four dinner chairs that she had previously purchased. A store employee met her in the parking lot with a flatbed cart and loaded the four chains on the cart to be transported into the store. As the employee began pushing it toward the store, the chairs became unstable and fell to the ground. In response, the worker asked Kaur to walk beside the cart and hold the chairs in place to prevent any further falls, which Kaur agreed to do. As they arrived at the threshold of the store’s entrance, the store employee allegedly angled the cart toward Kaur and pushed it into her, striking her leg. Kaur allegedly lost her balance and fell on her right hip. Kaur claimed to her right hip and ankle. Kaur sued the operator of the store, HomeGoods Inc.; the property owner, Village Shopping Center LLC; and the owner of the HomeGoods franchise, The TJX Companies Inc. Kaur alleged that the defendants failed to train the store employee and implement proper safety procedures. Kaur’s counsel cited surveillance footage of the accident to argue that the store employee angled the cart toward Kaur, striking her in her right leg. In his deposition testimony, which was read at trial, Kaur’s safety engineering expert testified that HomeGoods lacked the requisite safety procedures, namely that the store employee had not received any training to operate a flatbed cart (the employee had operated a flatbed cart, on prior occasions). Kaur’s counsel further faulted the HomeGoods employee for asking for Kaur’s help, when it would have been more appropriate to ask for the assistance of a co-worker. HomeGoods’ counsel maintained that Kaur was contributorily negligent and solely responsible for the accident. Its counsel cited the surveillance footage, noting that Kaur had turned her head in a different direction of the flatbed cart as she and the store employee entered the store and that, in doing so, she then stepped into the cart, causing her to fall. Since no evidence was presented against the property owner, the court granted a motion for non-suit, and Village Shopping Center was dismissed. In addition, The TJX Companies was dismissed from the case early on., Kaur’s husband drove her to an emergency room where she was X-rayed and diagnosed with a right-ankle sprain. Kaur alleged that she suffered the injury by the twisting and turning of her ankle/foot when she lost her balance and fell. On April 23, 2013, five days after the incident, Kaur presented to a medical provider with complaints of pain to her right ankle and severe pain to her right hip. She was subsequently prescribed physical therapy. In the ensuing months, and through 2014, Kaur treated with rehabilitation, underwent MRIs (which were negative), underwent a lidocaine injection to her hip, and consulted with a podiatrist and an orthopedic surgeon. Her podiatrist had suspected complex regional pain syndrome, also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy or causalgia, a chronic pain condition, but the podiatrist ruled it out after performing a bone scan that was negative. In spring 2014, Kaur, via a second MRI, was diagnosed with a labrum tear of the right hip. In July 2014, Kaur, experiencing ongoing swelling and a burning sensation in her right ankle, along with shooting pains, presented to another podiatrist for a second opinion, and a second MRI showed tears of two ankle ligaments. In October 2014, she underwent surgery to repair the torn ligaments. (Around this time, she had stopped treating for her hip, as it was determined that she required surgical repair of the labrum tear.) Despite the ankle procedure, Kaur’s symptoms allegedly persisted. She continued physical therapy, treated with medication, and consulted with her podiatrist. In August 2015, Kaur was referred to a physiatrist, who suspected complex regional pain syndrome, given Kaur’s symptoms, which at that time included discoloration of the right ankle and foot. The physician continued Kaur on medication through June 2016, at which time a bone scan was positive for complex regional pain syndrome. She then received two sympathetic nerve-block injections, which provided temporary relief. In August 2016, a temporary neurostimulator was implanted in her spine to alleviate her pain, and a permanent one was inserted the following month. Other than consulting with a neurologist and physiatrist, no further treatment was administered. Kaur’s treating podiatrist, who performed the ankle surgery, confirmed that Kaur suffered two ligament tears and that the surgery was necessary to repair those tears. Kaur’s neurology expert causally related Kaur’s complex regional pain syndrome to the accident. According to the expert, it is a permanent condition that will cause Kaur to experience constant, extreme pain for the rest of her life, which has rendered her significantly impaired and disabled. The neurostimulator will not cure her condition, but it will control her pain, according to the expert, who noted that every 10 years Kaur will require surgery to replace the neurostimulator’s batteries. The expert also confirmed that Kaur needs hip surgery to repair her labrum tear. In addition to her physical impairments, Kaur also suffers from depression, which typically accompanies complex regional pain syndrome, the expert neurologist opined. Kaur, who was unemployed at the time of the accident (she was a homemaker), testified that her constant pain and restrictions in her ankle and hip have greatly diminished her physical activities. She claimed she no longer is able to pursue her hobbies in interior design and home decoration, which included decorating her family’s home for the holidays and attending fashion trade shows. She also claimed that she is no longer active in her church, which included leading a children’s group, nor does she cook and clean around the house. Not only is she physically unable to do these things, but she has lost interest in the activities, Kaur alleged. Kaur’s husband testified about his wife’s alleged limitations and how her personality has changed. He claimed that she exhibits aloofness and sadness, and is short-tempered, which has affected their relationship. He also testified that Kaur is sleep-deprived, since she wakes up one to two hours per night due to the pain. Thus, Kaur sought recovery of $94,519.80 in past medical costs and $978,854 in future medical costs, which included her future surgeries, psychotropic medication, and counseling. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. HomeGoods’ radiology expert testified that there was no pathology on Kaur’s films to indicate that she suffered ligament tears in her right ankle. In addition, the store’s neurology expert maintained that Kaur’s ankle reconstruction and repair was an unnecessary and improper procedure amounting to professional negligence by the surgeon who performed the surgery. HomeGoods’ orthopedic surgery expert opined that the labral tear in the hip was degenerative and not causally related to the accident. The store’s expert life-care planner criticized the components of Kaur’s alleged life-care plan, opining that certain treatments were unnecessary and, therefore, so were its costs. As a result, HomeGoods’ economics expert presented a range of approximately $450,000 to about $750,000. Thus, defense counsel for HomeGoods asserted that because the right ankle repair and reconstruction procedure was unnecessary and improper, HomeGoods was not responsible for the complex regional pain syndrome, which was solely caused by the surgery.