On Oct. 2, 2011, plaintiff Kathleen Espinoza, 57, an accountant, went for breakfast at City Espresso Gourmet Coffee, a coffee shop in San Jose, with her husband, their daughter, and two grandsons. After ordering food and drinks, the family went outside to the patio. Sometime thereafter, Espinoza took her grandson to the restroom. As they were walking back to their table on the patio, Espinoza tripped and fell forward, fracturing a shoulder and bruising her face. Espinoza sued City Espresso Gourmet Coffee. She alleged the coffee shop failed to properly repair or maintain the patio area, creating a dangerous condition. Espinoza claimed that as she was walking back from the bathroom she tripped on the border area between several patio bricks and surrounding concrete slabs, causing her to fall forward. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the brick patio at the back of the coffee shop was comprised of 16 brick tiles that had varying degrees of elevation, instead of being evenly aligned. Counsel asserted that Espinoza tripped on one of those bricks, and she presented photographic evidence of the patio area. Defense counsel noted that there was no testimony from anyone who allegedly saw Espinoza trip on the brick tiles or from anyone who allegedly saw that the brick tile caused Espinoza’s fall. Counsel also contended that the photographs presented by plaintiff’s counsel established that the bricks in the area where Espinoza fell were not cracked or broken and that there was no grass or weeds in the area. Thus, counsel argued that plaintiff’s counsel failed to demonstrate that the patio was in a dilapidated condition. As to the varying elevation of the individual bricks that Espinoza claimed she tripped on, defense counsel argued that the elevation amounted to a “trivial defect” under the law. In addition, defense counsel argued that plaintiff’s counsel failed produce evidence at trial that Espinoza actually tripped on the brick tile and contended that Espinoza only “thinks” she tripped on them. Instead, counsel argued that Espinoza could have tripped on her own feet or anything else. Thus, at the end of trial, defense counsel moved for a judgment of nonsuit based on the legal defense of “trivial defect.”, Espinoza was transported by ambulance to the emergency room at Kaiser Permanente, in San Jose. She underwent an X-ray and CT scan, which revealed an anterior shoulder dislocation. Espinoza was also diagnosed with a broad Hill-Sachs deformity of the humeral head and fractured shoulder. She subsequently had her shoulder placed in a sling for three weeks and then began physical therapy six weeks later, as well as home stretching and message. Espinoza claimed that therapy resulted in some improvement, but that she still suffered from pain, deceased strength, and limited range of motion more than 2.5 years later. As a result, she presented to an orthopedic surgeon at Sports Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Associates, Dr. Michael Dillingham, in February 2014. Dillingham subsequently ordered an MRI of Espinoza’s shoulder and recommended surgery. On Nov. 4, 2014, Espinoza underwent open shoulder surgery with a distal clavicle excision. The surgery was successful, and Espinoza was prescribed a course of physical therapy lasting six weeks, three times a week, to gain right shoulder range of motion. She claimed that her prognosis is excellent. Thus, Espinoza sought recovery of $175,000 in total damages. Her husband, plaintiff Daniel Espinoza, sought recovery of $25,000 for his loss of consortium.