On Oct. 1, 2015, plaintiff Yefronya Libaryan, 68, a retiree, stepped off an airplane at the Tom Bradley International Terminal at Los Angeles International Airport. She was put in a wheelchair by an agent of Aero Port Services Inc., which provided wheelchair-transportation services at the terminal and had a contract with the 38 airlines that flew to the terminal. Upon arrival at the baggage claim, the agent rolled Libaryan approximately 6 to 8 feet in front of a carousel that was crowded with people receiving baggage from a full flight of more than 300 passengers. After the wheelchair agent followed Libaryan’s husband, leaving Libaryan unattended, Libaryan tipped over in the wheelchair, two feet away from the carousel. She landed face first on the baggage claim floor and allegedly sustained to her right shoulder. Later, in December 2018, more than three years post-injury, Libaryan fell in her kitchen, partly due to her inability to use her right arm to regain her balance. As a consequence, she suffered the exact same injury, but to her opposite extremity. Libaryan sued Aero Port Services Inc., alleging that it negligently trained the wheelchair agent and was liable for the agent’s actions. There were no witnesses to the incident, and video footage was erased by the airport after 45 days. Plaintiff’s counsel identified an unexplored issue of common carrier, which brings with it a higher standard of care, requiring the vigilance and care of a very cautious person. As a result, the matter is a case of first impression in California for wheelchair transportation services. Ultimately, Judge Margaret Oldendorf ruled that the issue of common carrier would be decided by the jury. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the wheelchair agent submitted a declaration stating that he began working for Aero Port Services in April 2015, six months before the incident, and that, on the date of the accident, he was suffering from bladder retention issues that resulted in severe cramping. He also claimed that the issues on that day caused him to leave work early following the 4:15 p.m. incident. He further claimed that he thought the wheelchair was too small for Libaryan, that he never inspected the wheelchair before or after the incident, and that while his custom and practice was to lock the wheelchair, he had noted faulty brakes that allowed the wheelchair to move on multiple occasions before the incident. The agent also claimed that he motioned for Libaryan to stay, but that he did not communicate verbally due to the language barrier, as Libaryan was Armenian speaking and had been living in the United States since 1991. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the agent admitted that a two-month period that was believed to be for time off due to his medical problems was actually a period during which the agent had been terminated by Aero Port Services for not meeting performance expectations during his 90-day probationary period. The agent was hired in April 2015, fired in July 2015, fought for his job back for two months based on the fact that he had passed his probationary period by two days before being fired, and actually got himself reinstated in September 2015. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that despite being fired for cause, the agent was not put through retraining and that, three weeks later, the subject incident occurred. Counsel also noted that the agent claimed that he was only trained that locking brakes on wheelchairs always involved pushing the brakes in one direction. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the operations manager admitted to never training anyone and to not being aware of what training was actually provided to the agents. The operations manager also claimed that no wheelchair agents were ever trained about where to park wheelchairs in the baggage claim or trained as to when it is safe to leave someone unattended in a chair, as he did not believe there was any necessity to train agents on such issues. Aero Port Services’ chief financial officer testified that he received the preservation letter regarding the wheelchair in 2015, but that nothing was done about it because the wheelchair had been in continuous use for the 4.5 months prior to the incident. He also was asked about common carrier issues, and claimed that Aero Port Services received $45 per wheelchair “push” and that there were 275,000 pushes in 2015. He further claimed that Aero Port Services had no discretion over who it would push in a wheelchair, which plaintiff’s counsel asserted established that Aero Port Services transported members of the general public. Specifically, the airline would give Aero Port Services the names and flight numbers, and Aero Port Services would then transport all passengers identified to it via wheelchair. Further, counsel contended that any passenger who self-identified as needing a wheelchair could ask for one and that no “proof” of need was required. In addition, the chief financial officer claimed that transportation was from point A to point B along very particular routes through Tom Bradley International Terminal. Libaryan’s expert safety engineer opined that the wheelchair brakes should have been engaged at the carousel and that parking a wheelchair six feet from a busy carousel with passengers trying to remove their luggage was unsafe. The expert also opined that the safety issue rose exponentially when the wheelchair attendant walked away from the wheelchair to help Libaryan’s husband with the baggage. The expert opined that the attendant should have moved the wheelchair to a safe location near a wall or, at least, out of the high-traffic area and that the combination of those factors initiated the fall sequence. The safety engineering expert also played a video of an inspection of Aero Port Services’ wheelchair fleet, which included a wheelchair that had a brake on one wheel engaged by pushing forward while the brake on the opposite wheel had to be engaged by pushing backward. However, the expert did not provide any opinions as to the cause of Libaryan’s later kitchen fall. Defense counsel noted that Aero Port Services’ declaration of the agent, at a later date, stated that the wheelchair attendant inspected the wheelchair and that it was working fine on the date of the accident. However, in response, plaintiff’s counsel noted that the agent admitted that the second declaration that was submitted on behalf of Aero Port Services contained contrary information and that the agent denied knowing that the second declaration stated that he had inspected the wheelchair when he signed it in August 2019. The defense’s biomechanical expert opined that Libaryan could not have fallen out of the wheelchair based on leaning forward. However, he admitted that he did not consider whether stepping on the wheelchair footrests would cause a tip. During cross-examination, plaintiff’s counsel also demonstrated on an “exemplar” wheelchair that stepping on the wheelchair footrests would cause it to tip, just as had been done with the plaintiff’s safety expert earlier in trial., Libaryan sustained a comminuted fracture of the right arm’s upper humerus, which was allegedly quite severe, but was not known until after she was taken to a hospital the following day and underwent X-rays. Within 30 days of the incident, Libaryan underwent a right shoulder replacement via a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. However, she claimed that she had a poor result from the surgery and was left with limited 45-degree forward flexion. More than three years later, in December 2018, Libaryan suffered a second fall in her kitchen. She claimed that since she was unable to use her right arm to regain her balance, he suffered an identical injury to the left humerus. Libaryan ultimately required a second shoulder replacement surgery, this time on her left shoulder. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Medicare paid $17,000 for the shoulder replacement and postsurgical physical therapy as a result of her first injury. Counsel also contended that Libaryan’s in-home supportive services increased the time for additional care from two hours per day prior to the subject injury to four hours per day. Libaryan’s daughter-in-law testified that she now provides for her mother-in-law 12 hours per day with her husband filling in the additional time. As for the second injury, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Medicare paid $27,000 to Libaryan for the second shoulder surgery and post-operative physical therapy. Libaryan’s expert physiatrist, a professor at UCLA, opined that Libaryan requires 24-hour attendant care (the cost of which was reduced by the two hours of pre-injury in-home supportive services already provided) and that Libaryan needs that care irrespective of the second fall in the kitchen. The expert also opined that Libaryan will require a scooter, medicine, psychological care, periodic physical therapy and other treatment as part of her future care. However, the expert opined that no further surgery would help either arm. In addition, the expert physiatrist opined that Libaryan had a reduced life expectancy of seven years due to her pre-existing comorbidities of hypertension, diabetes, and bad knees and swelling in the legs and feet that limited her walking, in addition to Libaryan being 5 feet, 7 inches tall and weighing 270 pounds. Libaryan’s expert life care planner opined that Libaryan’s damages totaled $1.85 million, of which $1.4 million would be for attendant care. Libaryan sought recovery for her past and future medical costs, and past and future pain and suffering. Specifically, in regard to the airport accident, she sought recovery of $17,000 for her stipulated for past medical costs, $1.85 million for her future medical costs (based on the life care plan), $457,000 for past household services, $501,072 for her past pain and suffering, and $948,000 for her future pain and suffering. In regard to the kitchen fall, Libaryan sought recovery of $27,000 for her stipulated past medical costs, null for her future medical needs and $1 million in noneconomic damages for her combined past and future pain and suffering. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon confirmed that the orthopedic issues were not disputed in terms of care provided to date. However, he testified that he thought Libaryan’s range of motion of the right shoulder should be greater than that identified in the defense medical exam in August 2018, but that he could not provide an objective basis for that belief. The expert also opined that Libaryan’s fall in the kitchen had nothing to do with any impairment of her right, upper extremity and that Libaryan’s could have been caused by a fall from 2 feet or 10 feet due to Libaryan’s age, osteopenia and weight. The expert’s ultimate opinion on future care needs was that Libaryan required two hours per day of additional care due to the suffered as to both shoulders. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon knew nothing about the mechanism of the kitchen fall, which, according to plaintiff’s counsel, the expert did not deal with very well on cross-examination.