On Nov. 1, 2013, plaintiff Juan Puentes, 34, a detail shop owner, attended a Halloween party thrown at Kelly’s Beach, a campground area on the Kings River in Reedley, which contains a restaurant, a bar, and a general store. At some point, Puentes was asked to leave the property. He subsequently got into a heated argument with a property owner, Mike Kelly, causing a bouncer for Kelly’s Beach to become involved. Puentes ultimately fell to the ground, and he allegedly sustained to his right ankle and leg. Puentes sued the bouncer, Donald Harold; the property owners, Mike Kelly and Cindy Crawford Kelly; and Kelly’s Beach. Puentes claimed that Mike Kelly failed to control the situation when they were talking with each other and that Harold used excessive force against him. Specifically, Puentes claimed that Harold tackled him, causing him to trip and fall to the ground. An eyewitness testified on behalf of Puentes, claiming that Harold threw Puentes to the ground. However, defense counsel argued that the eyewitness was Puentes’ best friend and later discredited through conflicting testimony. Defense counsel contended that Puentes was highly intoxicated, with a blood alcohol content of 0.27, and was molesting females at the party by physically touching them in inappropriate places. Counsel contended that as a result, Puentes was asked to leave and was escorted off the property by Harold. However, defense counsel contended that Puentes tried to get back to the party, which is when Harold blocked Puentes’ way. Counsel contended that Puentes then grabbed Harold’s shirt and yanked it, and that a trip-and-fall ensued., Puentes was picked up at the scene by his mother and taken to Adventist Medical Center – Reedley. At the hospital, it was discovered that he had sustained a dislocated ankle and a fibular fracture. Puentes ultimately underwent a surgical reduction of the fibula bone, and his leg was placed in a splint. He then had a cast placed on his leg. Puentes claimed that he would suffer future arthritic conditions to his injured ankle and that he may require future surgery. He also claimed his prevented him from working at a detail shop for vehicles and boats. However, he made no wage loss claim, as he had later enrolled as a student for physical therapy. Thus, Puentes sought recovery of past and future medical costs. He also suggested that his past and future pain and suffering was between $500,000 and $700,000. Defense counsel denied Puentes’ claim that he would be substantially limited in the future and argued that any future fusion Puentes would have to treat his ankle condition would relieve any alleged pain and suffering. Defense counsel noted that the plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon testified that Puentes had suffered prior to his ankle and that Puentes was already arthritic. Counsel also noted that the plaintiff’s physician opined that it was not medically certain whether Puentes would require any future surgery.