In August 2010, at 8:30 pm, minor plaintiff Job Bernal Flores, 16, a student, attended a public skate session at the ice rink in Rabobank Arena in Bakersfield and paid the $10 entry fee, which included rental of skates. After he left the carpeted area wearing the skates and entered the ice, he allegedly took two to five gliding steps when his right skate slid sideways and he fell. Job sustained a right knee injury. The pair of skates rented to Job was never identified. Luz Flores, acting as Job’s guardian ad litem, sued the owner of the arena, the city of Bakersfield, and the operator of Rabobank Arena, SMG, which managed the ice rink for the city pursuant to written contract that mandated that the rink must be operated pursuant to acceptable industry standards. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the morning following the incident, Job made a report to a facility employee, who filled out an internal accident report and indicated that the skates were defective because they were “fairly dull.” Thus, counsel contended that the defendants were negligent for failing to inspect, repair and/or maintain the skates rented to Job, causing them to be defectively dull. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel noted that the director of the ice rink testified at his deposition that although he oversaw the ice rink for six years, he had no idea what the industry standards were for running an ice skating rink. Defense counsel contended that Job’s fall was an unwitnessed incident and that Job fell due to a misstep, and not because of any defects of the skates. Counsel noted that the testimony about the gliding steps off the carpet area and Job’s right leg giving way came only from Job, as no one else saw this occur, even though Job was at the rink with five of his friends. Defense counsel also contended that there are no published industry standards for operating an ice skating rink and that, according to the plaintiff’s liability expert, there are no standards for sharpening skates either. Counsel further contended that the inspection procedure that the plaintiff’s expert described as adequate for rental skates was followed and exceeded by the Bakersfield Ice Sports Center. In addition, the defense’s technical expert explained the physics and mechanics of Job’s described fall, and why it could not have occurred as a result of dull skates. As for the incident report, defense counsel contended that the facility employee filled it out at the request of Job’s adult male friend, who allegedly told the employee they needed the incident report in order to get Job’s medical bills paid. Counsel also contended that the employee did not make an independent determination about there being any defect with the skates, as they were never identified to him or anyone else at the rink. Counsel further contended that the employee suffers from Asperger syndrome, a type of autism that can result in social impairment, communication difficulties, and restrictive, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior. Defense counsel asserted that as a result, the employee simply wrote down what they asked him to write in the incident report, was well as wrote that Job had not been bending his knees properly. Plaintiff’s counsel contested the defense counsel’s claims at trail regarding the facility employee. Counsel argued that the employee’s alleged Asperger’s was not disclosed by defense counsel until the start of trial. Furthermore, plaintiff’s counsel argued that two months before trial, at his deposition, the employee testified that he had no independent recollection of the incident, while at trial, the employee testified that he remembered seeing Job skate for 15 minutes prior to the fall, which was not noted in the accident report. In response, defense counsel argued that at no time did the facility employee testify that he had no recollection of the events of the date of Job’s fall, but that the employee was asked at his deposition if he had seen Job fall and he answered truthfully, that he had not. Counsel further argued that the employee was never asked at his deposition if he had seen Job before or after the fall, so plaintiff’s counsel was surprised by the employee’s testimony during defense’s counsel direct examination at trial., Within hours of his fall, Job was taken to a hospital in Beverly Hills by his friends, as his right knee pain got worse. X-rays were subsequently taken and an indication of a knee injury was found. Eventually, Job was found to have chondromalacia of his right patella, which he treated conservatively, but with no relief. As a result, in early 2013, a year and a half post-accident, Job underwent a right knee arthroscopy by his treating physician. Job claimed that despite treatment, he suffers limitations to his right knee, including a decreased range of motion. He alleged that as a result, he was advised to avoid kneeling or squatting, as these would make his knee deteriorate faster. The plaintiff’s treating physician opined that Job would require two additional surgeries, but that Job will have permanent limitations. The defense’s orthopedic expert testified that the fees and medical expenses incurred in Beverly Hills, as opposed to Bakersfield, were unreasonable.