On July 16, 2010, plaintiff Sabrina Buelna, 35, a homemaker, was struck by a rotten falling tree branch outside her home in Crestline. She sustained to her legs and feet, bilaterally. Buelna sued Mick Hill, the landlord and owner of the property. She alleged that Hill negligently maintained the trees on the property, creating a dangerous condition. Buelna contended that Hill failed to remove the tree prior to one of its branches her. She noted that Hill had notice of the tree’s condition, as there had been past incidents of fallen branches resulting in damage and previous branches having to be removed due to tree rot. Additionally, Buelna contended that Hill purchased the property when it was already damaged. She claimed that Hill was a professional landlord at the time of the incident, and that he and members of his family were in the business of residential construction and home improvements, including landscaping and tree maintenance. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that it was likely that Hill was aware that the tree posed an extreme danger of death and/or serious injury to those in its vicinity, but instead misled Buelna and her husband about the safety of the tree. Hill denied any knowledge of the tree in question having previously shed branches. However, he noted that there had been one prior branch that fell, but claimed that no one knew the cause of the fall — i.e., snow, wind, etc. — and that there was no evidence that it was rotten. He further claimed that neither the tree nor its branches posed or caused any damage to the home. In addition, Hill testified that he did not perform tree maintenance, but only performed tree removal to clear lots for building. Thus, he contended that he had no knowledge of the tree being dangerous, and never misled Buelna or her husband. Hill further contended that, in fact, he had never discussed the tree with Buelna or her husband., Buelna sustained bilateral crush to both legs and feet when the heavy branch broke off and landed directly on her legs and feet. She was subsequently airlifted from the scene to Arrowhead Regional Hospital in San Bernardino, and later transferred to the UCI Medical Center in Orange County in order to receive proper expert care. She then remained hospitalized for several months and underwent multiple invasive surgeries. Buelna was separated from her three young children for an extended period of time during her recovery, and she claimed that her limited mobility has made caring for them more difficult. Thus, she sought recovery of damages for her medical expenses, and past and future pain and suffering. Buelna’s husband, Charles, 35, sought recovery of damages for his loss of consortium. Defense counsel noted that plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award over $20 million for Mrs. Buelna and $3 million to $5 million for Mr. Buelna.