At around 9 p.m. on Sept. 9, 2012, plaintiff Charlotte Dressen, an unemployed woman in her late 60s, was walking on a driveway adjacent to Doyle Bruning’s mobile home, which was in a mobile home park in Sonoma, when she tripped and fell. Dressen and her husband had driven to the mobile home park earlier that day to have dinner with Bruning and his mother and that as Dressen was walking back to her car, she tripped and fell, her left shoulder. Dressen sued Bruning, alleging that Bruning failed to properly maintain the area or warn of a wheel stop, creating a dangerous condition. Dressen claimed that it was dark out and that the subject area was unlit, making it hard to see a wheel stop, or parking bumper, located on Bruning’s driveway. She claimed that as a result, she tripped over the wheel stop and injured her shoulder. Plaintiff’s counsel also called three witnesses who all testified that the area was extremely dark and that they too almost tripped over the wheel stop. The plaintiff’s safety expert testified that the area in question was too dark and that Bruning knew, or should have known, that the area was unreasonably dangerous. Defense counsel argued that any negligence was due to the conduct of Dressen or Dressen’s husband, who had parked off-center, meeting a portion of the wheel stop along the passenger side of their vehicle. Counsel also argued that Dressen knew, or should have known, of the existence of the wheel stop, as Dressen walked by it four or five hours before the incident. Counsel further argued that there were alternative routes or methods to gain access to Dressen’s car that would have caused Dressen to avoid encountering the wheel stop. The defense’s construction expert measured the lighting at the trial courthouse parking lot, and at the plaintiff’s safety expert’s residence and business. He testified that the light meter readings at the accident scene were the same as those outside the trial courthouse, as well as outside the plaintiff’s safety expert’s residence and business. In addition, the defense’s biomechanical expert opined that Dressen may have, in fact, tripped on the tire of her vehicle, and not on the wheel stop., Dressen sustained a rotator cuff tear to her left, non-dominant shoulder. She was subsequently taken to a local emergency room right after the incident and presented to a Kaiser hospital in Santa Rosa the following day. One week later, she underwent a rotator cuff repair. However, Dressen claimed the surgery did not resolve her injury and, subsequently, 15 months later, underwent a reverse shoulder surgery at a Kaiser hospital, during which the ball and socket of the shoulder were reversed in position with each other from their original orientation. The plaintiff’s orthopedic surgery expert testified regarding the nature and significance of the reverse shoulder operation. The expert testified that while the surgery leaves limitations in range of motion, it makes for a stronger shoulder in the end. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Dressen $772,000 in total damages, including $72,000 in stipulated medical costs. Defense counsel asked the jury to award a defense verdict.