On July 11, 2011, at approximately 5 p.m., plaintiff Marva Bell, 69, a school teacher, was shopping at The Outlets at Orange when she tripped and fell. She claimed an uneven part of the sidewalk caused her fall and subsequent foot and lower back . Bell sued Simon Property Group Inc. However, the complaint was answered by Orange City Mills Limited Partnership, the entity that owns and operates The Outlets at Orange. (Bell later amended the complaint to name the proper defendant.) Bell alleged the defendant failed to maintain and repair the subject sidewalk, creating a dangerous condition. She also alleged that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition. Bell claimed she tripped and fell over a sidewalk edge that was raised as high as 1.25 inches. Her friend, who was present when the incident occurred, confirmed that a raised edge caught Bell’s foot and caused her to fall. Plaintiff’s counsel presented photographs of the alleged sidewalk defect, but contended that after the incident, Orange City Mills repaired the sidewalk. Thus, the plaintiff’s civil/safety engineer testified that he inspected and measured the sidewalk after the repairs. Defense counsel argued that there was not a dangerous condition present on the date of Bell’s fall and noted contended that Bell could not establish the location of where she tripped. Counsel also contended that there were several inconsistencies in Bell’s account of the incident when compared to the testimony of Bell’s friend, who was allegedly with her when Bell fell. In addition, defense counsel contended that Bell’s friend did not actually see Bell’s foot hit an expansion joint and that Bell and her friend testified to different paths of travel leading up to the fall, as well as identified different locations as to where the alleged accident occurred. Defense counsel argued that the testimony provided by the plaintiff’s retained civil/safety engineer was inconsistent with the testimony given by Bell, in that the expert took measurements in an attempt to establish the height discrepancy at what he believed to be the proper expansion joint location. However, defense counsel noted that Bell later testified that the location measured by her expert was not where she fell. In addition, defense counsel called the mall’s security director, who testified that the sidewalk area in question did not have any measurable elevation change., Bell sustained a fracture to the fifth metatarsal of her right foot. She was subsequently taken by her friend to a nearby hospital, where Bell’s foot was casted for six weeks. She then followed up with a podiatrist for treatment and underwent five sessions of physical therapy for her foot. Bell also claimed she aggravated an L5-S1 injury in her lower back, requiring her to undergo a revision of a previous microdiscectomy in December 2011. Bell claimed she was wheelchair bound and on bed-rest during her time in the cast and that she was restricted from weight bearing activity following the removal of the cast. She alleged that, while her foot has since healed, she still experiences pain and stiffness in her lower back, which has prevented her from returning to work as a teacher. Bell claimed that as a result, she was prompted to retire two years earlier than planned. Thus, Bell claimed $21,000 in past medical costs (paid by MediCare), and sought recovery of $151,000 to $165,000 in past lost earnings. She also sought recovery of $260,000 in damages for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Bell’s back injury was unrelated to the fall and that the fall did not force Bell to retire. Counsel presented evidence and documentation that he claimed showed that Bell told her medical providers on the date of the fall (and during subsequent visits) that she was retired. Thus, defense counsel argued that Bell was already retired at the time of the fall and was not entitled to any lost wages, even if liability was found.