On Feb. 14, 2019, plaintiff Toni Chase, 71, a retiree, exited the AMC movie theater in the Westfield Mall, in San Diego. As she entered the outdoor courtyard area, which was wet due to rainfall, she slipped and fell. Her fall was captured on surveillance video. Chase sustained to her right hip. Chase sued the owner of the courtyard and theater, American Multi-Cinema Inc.; the owner of the mall and property, Westfield LLC; and the company that maintained the mall, Westfield Property Management LLC. Chase alleged that the defendants failed to properly repair and/or maintain the outdoor courtyard area, creating a dangerous condition. It was determined that American Multi-Cinema (AMC) indemnified both Westfield LLC and Westfield Property Management LLC. As a result, Chase dismissed the Westfield entities for a waiver of costs shortly before trial. Thus, the matter continued against AMC only. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the concrete in the outdoor courtyard area was dangerous, as it became slick when it rained. However, counsel argued that despite the dangerous condition, the area had not been updated or changed in 26 years, since the area was built in 1995, despite numerous other falls at the same location. The plaintiff’s expert safety engineer testified about how he tested the friction of the subject concrete flooring area using the coefficient of friction to determine the slipperiness of the subject surface. He also testified that a public sidewalk that has rough concrete has a coefficient of friction of 0.5 and that ice has a coefficient of friction of 0. He further testified that, based on his test, the subject concrete floor of the area controlled by AMC had a coefficient of friction of 0.25. As a result, the expert opined that the type of concrete that AMC used was inappropriate for the surface of an outdoor venue and that the while the rest of the mall had made updates, which included the installation of proper flooring, since 1995, the subject AMC area did not and, instead, still had the old, smooth, dangerous concrete. The plaintiff’s safety engineering expert testified that if AMC did not want to replace the flooring, it could have applied an epoxy abrasive coating to the concrete surface, which would cost $0.50 per square foot and would have given enough friction to make the concrete safe. He testified that the total cost to apply the coating for AMC to fix the problem permanently would have been between $3,000 and $4,000, but that AMC did not make any such repair. In addition, the plaintiff’s expert opined that it is dangerous for businesses to use hazard cones as a permanent solution, as the cones are for temporary problems, such as a soda spill, and that cones are not appropriate for permanent problems that need to be changed. Defense counsel contended that there was no evidence of a dangerous condition due to a lack of history of falls in the area when it rained. Counsel noted that during the four years before the subject incident, almost four million patrons walked through the subject area, but that there were only three incidents of falls during rainy weather in that area. Defense counsel argued that AMC cannot guarantee every person’s safety when it rains outside and that Chase should have known that when it rains, surfaces can be slippery when wet. Counsel also argued that AMC had placed cones in the courtyard that said "slippery when wet," to warn of the area and that AMC had done this for the past 26 years, since the area was built. In addition, defense counsel argued that, while the plaintiff’s expert’s measures to remedy the area may have been safer, AMC was not required to make any changes to the area because people should know to be safe when walking in the rain and because AMC appropriately warned of the area being slippery when it rained., Chase sustained a fracture of the right leg’s femoral head. She was taken via ambulance to the emergency room at Kaiser Permanente Zion Medical Center, in San Diego, where she underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery to repair the femur. Chase was bedridden for a week and then used a wheelchair for a few weeks. She then used a walker and was using a cane at the time of trial. Chase underwent two months of treatment at a rehabilitation facility before she could ambulate with the walker and cane. Chase claimed that right leg became two inches shorter than her left leg after the surgery and that she now has a permanent limp. She alleged that she used to be active, but that as a result of her limp, she can no longer walk long distances and she has problems playing with and taking care of her grandchildren, which she used to do fulltime. The plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgery expert opined that Chase could benefit from a future hip replacement surgery and that it would help with Chase’s chronic pain. The expert also opined that Chase’s limp could be corrected at that time, as well. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Chase currently does not want to undergo surgery because of her experience with the first surgery and because she can live with her limitations right now. Plaintiff’s counsel waived Chase’s past medical costs, and asked the jury to award $250,000 for the future cost of Chase’s hip surgery. Counsel also asked the jury to award Chase $750,000 for Chase’s past pain and suffering and $800,000 for Chase’s future pain and suffering. Thus, Case sought recovery of $1.8 million in total damages. Defense counsel did not dispute the severity of Chase’s , but questioned the need for future medical treatment. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Chase’s treatment and surgery was reasonable. However, the expert testified that he did not recommend the alleged future hip surgery because Chase did not already undergo the surgery the last two years and because he felt it was obvious that Chase did not need it.