On June 3, 2012, plaintiff Arlyn Nicklas, 20, a clothing store worker, was visiting a relative on the second floor of a Motel 6 in North Hills, in the San Fernando Valley. At around 11 p.m. Nicklas exited the guest room and was walking across the walkway when she slipped and fell, landing on her left side. Nicklas claimed to her left arm. Nicklas sued Accor Business and Leisure North America. Accor Business & Leisure North America Inc. and Motel 6 Operating L.P. were later added as defendants in an amended complaint. The matter ultimately continued against Motel 6 Operating L.P. only. Nicklas claimed that it was a particularly hot and humid night and that the through-the-wall unit air conditioner, which had part of the unit inside the guest room and the other part on the outside of the room, was leaking condensation. She claimed that as a result, the air conditioner created a puddle in the walkway, which caused her to slip and fall. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the subject air conditioning unit was not functioning properly and produced more condensation than a properly working unit. Counsel also contended that Motel 6 knew that the air conditioning unit had been leaking because there were condensation stains on the walkway that appeared in the same drip pattern as the puddle that Nicklas fell in. Accordingly, counsel contended that the unit had leaked on more than one occasion. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that there were holes drilled into the frame of the air conditioning unit, which was additional evidence that Motel 6 knew of the issue of condensation dripping, and that the holes were made so that the condensation leaked on the walkway outside, instead of inside, on the carpeting in the guest room. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Motel 6 failed to properly maintain the air conditioning unit and failed to follow its own procedures for monthly and annual cleanings of the air conditioning unit. The plaintiff’s expert safety engineer opined that the slope of the walkway was consistent with water stains coming from the air conditioning unit to form the alleged puddle discovered. The expert opined that the puddle followed the path of water stains and that the walkway floor was unsafe when wet because the ongoing leaking issue added chemicals and grime that made the surface more slippery when wet. The expert further opined that the motel’s safety inspection system fell below the standard of care for a motel. The plaintiff’s forensic engineer, who specialized in flood and fire investigation, opined that the source of the liquid was from the air conditioning unit. He also opined that given the atmospheric conditions on the night of the fall, the air conditioning unit could have produced enough liquid to cross the walkway. The expert further opined that the holes at the bottom of the unit were evidence that they were used for drainage to the exterior walkway. In addition, the forensic engineer opined that there were cheap alternatives that the motel could have used instead, including vacuuming out the liquid more often, installing drainage piping, or even installing a simple drainage canister to collect the liquid. Defense counsel argued that it could not be proven that the subject air conditioning unit actually condensed any liquid. Counsel contended that photographs were taken the day after the fall, when the alleged puddle was mainly dry, and that the only remaining liquid was a puddle located on the opposite side of the walkway, eight feet from where Nicklas fell. Defense counsel argued that the other puddle had nothing to do with liquid from the subject air conditioning unit and that the motel did not know where the other puddle came from, but even so, it had no notice of any condition. In addition, defense counsel argued that an air conditioning unit cannot create enough liquid to create a large enough puddle for an individual to fall on a walkway. The defense’s safety expert opined that because the walkway surface was concrete, it was not dangerous when wet. The expert also testified that the location of the alleged puddle was to the right of the guest room exit and that Nicklas’ vehicle was parked on the left side, so she would not have been able to cross the path of the puddle. The defense’s expert mechanical engineer opined that the air conditioning unit was maintained properly and that the motel’s process for cleaning the unit was within the standard of care., Nicklas sustained a spiral fracture of the left, non-dominant humerus. Her husband, whom she married three months before the accident, drove her to a hospital. Over the next three weeks, doctors attempted to heal the fracture with bracing. When bracing appeared to be not working, Nicklas underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery, during which a rod was placed into her arm. For the first few months after the surgery, Nicklas failed to get the recommended physical therapy. When she eventually did start, she had signs of a frozen shoulder due to a lack of movement. Over the next two years, Nicklas attended physical therapy sporadically. She then went through a more consistent physical therapy regimen, though it failed to repair her frozen shoulder. Nicklas ultimately underwent manipulation under anesthesia to forcibly break up the scar tissue. She then underwent another course physical therapy, after which she had minimal limitations. Nicklas claimed that she is able to continue with her daily life. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that because Nicklas’ arm was immobile for three weeks in a brace before the surgery and then immobile for four weeks post-surgery, that the adhesions could have already formed. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that during the window of opportunity to get physical therapy, after the open reduction and fixation surgery, Nicklas fell into a depressive state and that due to her depression, Nicklas stayed at home and did not seek care. Thus, counsel argued that, regardless of when the adhesions formed, the subject accident caused Nicklas’ depression, which prevented her from seeking further care. The plaintiff’s psychology expert opined that Nicklas did go into a depressive state during the window of opportunity and continued for some time after the second surgery. The expert agreed that the psychologic condition would make Nicklas averse to physical therapy and to seeking therapy. He also opined that Nicklas would require future medical care in the form of psychological care, counseling, and marriage counseling. Defense counsel argued that Nicklas’ failure to seek timely physical therapy caused the frozen shoulder and that if Nicklas had sought the therapy and had completed it, the adhesions would not have formed. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Nicklas did have a window of opportunity to seek physical therapy and that had Nicklas sought it during that portion, she would have avoided the frozen shoulder. The defense’s psychology expert agreed that Nicklas did suffer from depression, but opined that it was milder than the plaintiff’s expert testified. The defense’s psychology expert further opined that Nicklas’ future care would only be minimal, with eight visits at the most.