At around 7 p.m. on Dec. 30, 2012, plaintiff Pedro Ayala, 70, a retiree, tripped over a wheel stop in a parking lot that was located in front of a Super A Foods store, in Temple City. Ayala claimed to his left knee. Ayala sued the lessor of the parking lot, Super A Foods Inc., and the owner of the property adjacent to the parking lot, Bristol Holding, LLC. Ayala alleged that the wheel stop constituted a dangerous condition and that the defendants were negligent for failing to address that condition. Ayala admitted that there was no defect with the wheel stop and that he had noticed the wheel stop when he initially parked his car. However, he claimed that he did not see the wheel stop as he was coming back to his vehicle. The plaintiff’s safety expert opined that a bollard should have been used instead of a wheel stop. Defense counsel argued that the subject wheel stops were open and obvious and that Ayala was the sole cause of his own fall, noting that Ayala admitted that he was distracted by the car next to his. Defense counsel also contended that neither Super A Foods nor Bristol Holding owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property where Ayala fell, as it was a “common area” for multiple business establishments and maintained by Temple City. Thus, counsel argued that if anyone other than Ayala was responsible for the fall, it would be the city, which was the entity responsible for the maintenance of the entire parking lot. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert opined that wheel stops are common, ordinary and required per the Building Code. He also opined that bollards should not be used because they pose more problems than wheel stops do., Ayala claimed that his left knee developed cellulitis as a result of the subject accident. After the fall, Ayala went home without reporting the incident or seeking any treatment. Two days later, he went into a Kaiser location with complaints of left knee pain. Kaiser released him that same day with antibiotics for a left knee infection (cellulitis), but Ayala returned the next day with increased pain. As a result, he underwent a left knee arthrotomy with drain placement and remained hospitalized for about a week following the procedure. He then underwent a few months of physical therapy, which ended on April 11, 2013. Ayala did not return to Kaiser for any knee issue until December 2015, which was shortly after a subsequent fall at his house in November 2015, at which time he complained of pain to both his left and right knees. The plaintiff’s orthopedic surgery expert testified that Ayala suffered a left knee infection that resulted in cartilage damage. He also opined that the left knee problems have caused Ayala to overcompensate with his right leg, causing Ayala to begin to have pain in his right knee as well. The expert further opined that as a result of Ayala’s pain in both knees, Ayala will eventually need to undergo knee replacements to both the left and right knees. Thus, Ayala sought recovery of past medical costs for the physical therapy and arthrotomy, and future medical costs for the two future knee replacements. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Ayala was not all that hurt in the fall because Ayala had left the scene without treatment and did not seek any treatment until two days after the incident. Counsel also contended that the infection, and any problems caused by the infection, had resolved by the time Ayala ended his physical therapy in April 2013. Thus, defense counsel argued that Ayala’s knee issues, following more than a two-year gap after his physical therapy had ended, were due to Ayala’s pre-existing osteoarthritis, over-30-year history of Gout, and/or his subsequent fall in November 2015. During the defense’s cross-examination of Ayala’s treating surgeon, the expert orthopedic surgeon testified that Ayala was doing pretty well by the end of his physical therapy in April 2013 and that one would not expect there to be any cartilage damage due to the left knee infection. The defense’s own orthopedic surgery expert opined that any need for future knee replacements was not related to the fall, but, rather, to Ayala’s pre-existing osteoarthritis. However, during the plaintiff’s cross-examination of the defense’s expert, the orthopedic surgeon conceded that the knee infection was caused by the fall and that Ayala’s treatment up to the end of physical therapy was reasonable, necessary, and related to the incident.