On Aug. 6, 2009, around 8:30 a.m., plaintiff Christine Lyles, 38, went to a Starbucks coffeehouse on Euclid Avenue and Market Street in San Diego for a breakfast meeting with two colleagues to transition her responsibilities as she was in the process of transitioning out of her job and into a new position with Comcast in New Mexico. Lyles and her colleagues were initially seated outside to have their meeting, but eventually moved inside to a table by the handoff counter because a bee was bothering them. Lyles was seated so that her back was to the entrance and when she got up to leave, she stepped from a dry part of the floor to a wet part. As a result, one of her feet slid out in front of her and she fell to her right side, severely fracturing her right ankle. Lyles sued Starbucks Corp., Starbucks Coffee Co. and Starbucks Holding Co. She alleged that the defendants’ employees failed to warn of the wet floor, creating a dangerous condition. Lyles claimed that, unbeknownst to her, a Starbucks employee had begun mopping the floor inside. She alleged that her colleagues noticed the employee mopping the floor when they walked back in, but that she did not. Lyles also alleged that she did not notice the employee continue to mop the area during her meeting because her back was to the employee. She claimed that the employee had forgotten to put up any wet floor signs and got called to the back after mopping only half the store. Shortly thereafter, the accident occurred. Lyles’ counsel contended that Starbucks violated its own policies and general safety rules by mopping a lobby unnecessarily during peak business hours and by not placing safety cones out to warn customers of the wet floor. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert opined that the flooring was generally safe for walking and had good traction while wet, but that the lack of signs caused the slip because Lyles was not given adequate warning to adjust her gait accordingly. The expert further opined that slips were less likely on the type of flooring in question, but could still occur, especially without warning and when walking from dry to wet portions. In addition, the plaintiff’s retail safety expert opined that the policy of mopping high-traffic areas of the floor during business hours and allowing customers to walk on wet floors violated industry standards. Defense counsel argued that Lyles did not slip, but rather rolled her ankle out of her high-heeled wedge shoes. Counsel noted that only Lyles claimed that she did not see the employee mopping when she and her colleagues walked into the store. Counsel also noted that Starbucks admitted that “wet floor” signs were not up after the area was mopped, but argued that the flooring was slip-resistant and that the cause of the accident was Lyles’ dangerous and poorly maintained shoes. The defense’s civil engineer and accident reconstruction expert opined that there was no possibility of a slip on the flooring in question, even when the floor is wet, due to its slip-resistant nature. Further, the expert opined that the more likely cause of the fall was uneven wear on Lyle’s shoe, which caused her to catch an edge and roll her ankle out of her wedge shoe. Defense counsel noted that the plaintiff’s retail safety expert could not identify any specific industry manual or book where the alleged policy of mopping high-traffic areas of a floor during business hours and allowing customers to walk on wet floors violated industry standards., Lyles sustained a bimalleolar fracture with a dislocation to her right ankle. She was subsequently transported via ambulance to Grossmont Hospital, where her ankle injury was diagnosed. Lyles first underwent a closed reduction under conscious sedation on Aug. 6, 2009. However, the following morning, X-rays revealed that Lyles continued to have a residual posterior subluxation with a posterior malleolar fracture. As a result, she underwent an open reduction and internal fixation on Aug. 7, 2009. Following the surgery, she continued treatment with a podiatrist for seven months and a physical therapist for 3.5 months. She also tried shockwave therapy from March 2012 to April 2012, which allegedly did not provide relief. Lyles claimed that she continues to have residual pain and ongoing complications from her ankle fracture. She alleged that she suffers pain every day and cannot participate in ordinary activities like running, mountain biking, hiking, skiing, or standing or walking for significant periods, nor can she wear heeled shoes of any kind. Lyles claimed that not being able to wear high-heels was a significant loss to her, as she was an avid shoe-lover prior to the accident, and in her capacity as a business woman. Lyles is currently an account executive in Media Sales & Advertising for Comcast. According to defense counsel, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Lyles $4 million in damages. Doctors for both the plaintiff and defense agreed that, based on medical literature of probability, Lyles is likely to suffer from arthritis in her ankle in 20 to 30 years, as the fracture went into the joint. Further, the plaintiff’s physicians believed that the residual pain could be from nerve damage or soft-tissue damage, while the defense’s physicians believed the residual pain could be from soft-tissue damage, or a slight step-off or misalignment of the fracture. Both sets of experts believed that future surgery may be necessary, including an arthroscopy and removal of the hardware. Defense counsel disputed Lyles’ claims that she continued to experience pain daily and the extent of the pain, as well as her claims regarding her ability to perform activities.