On Dec. 17, 2016, plaintiff Cristy Brown, 37, a pre-school teacher at a Montessori school, was attempting to shut the front exterior door to a unit she rented in a duplex, in Sonoma, and latch the door with the dead bolt when her left arm went through one of the nine glass panels in the upper half of the door, adjacent to the dead bolt lock. Brown sustained a laceration to her left arm. Brown sued the owner of the duplex, Loralyn Parmelee, alleging that Parmelee failed to repair and/or maintain the exterior door, creating a dangerous condition. Brown claimed that the door popped open as she was attempting to shut and latch it, causing her to put her hand on the glass to shut the door. She claimed that as she pushed on the glass to close the door, her arm went through one of the panels. Brown also claimed that she had complained of several problems with shutting the door before the accident and had requested that the door be replaced. She alleged that Parmelee agreed to replace the door before the incident and even received new door measurements from her many months before the accident, but that Parmelee did not replace the door or order a new one for the unit until after the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the duplex was built in approximately 1964 and that Parmelee had purchased the unit in 1989. Counsel contended that the nine glass panels in the door violated the building code because the panels used were not shatterproof or tempered safety glass. Counsel also noted that Parmelee had previously removed the door in the other unit of the duplex approximately 10 years before the incident, while Parmelee was living in the unit, and replaced it with a solid wood door that only had a small amount of glass at the very top. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that while Parmelee was intending to replace the door in Brown’s unit, similar to the other unit’s door, Parmelee failed to timely do so. The plaintiff’s building code expert opined that the subject door was in a hazardous location for an entry/exit and that it was in violation of the building code. The expert testified that, under the 1976 building code, doors required safety or tempered glass. If the door was installed prior to 1976, the building code did not require it to be replaced. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that Parmelee disposed of the subject door when she replaced it after the accident, so there was no corroborating evidence that it was a pre-code door. Regardless, the plaintiff’s expert explained that even if the door was installed prior to 1976, there was evidence of a prior repair to the glass panel that broke, so the glass should have been replaced with tempered glass regardless of when it was originally installed. He also opined that non-safety glass constituted a dangerous condition that Parmelee, as the landlord, should have known about, so Parmelee should have been replaced the glass before the incident. The building code expert further testified that the subject door should have been “red tagged” for replacement by Parmelee upon inspection before Parmelee purchased the duplex in 1989. The plaintiff’s building code expert was allowed to show pieces of beaded safety glass to the jury and contrast it with large, broken shards of regular glass, noting that safety or tempered glass breaks in beads. The broken shards of regular glass were also provided to the jury during deliberations. The expert further opined that if the door had been had been replaced or had tempered or safety glass installed, Brown would not have been injured. Defense counsel contended that Parmelee was responsive to Brown’s prior complaint that the door was “sticking” in that Parmelee hired a contractor to address the issue five months before the incident. Counsel also contended that the door was functional at the time of the incident and that Parmelee only intended to replace it for aesthetic reasons. In addition, counsel noted that there were inconsistencies in Brown’s versions of the incident. Defense counsel noted that the paramedic who arrived at the premises immediately after the incident testified that Brown initially reported that she had “slammed” her hand through the glass during an argument with her boyfriend. As a result, counsel argued that the purpose of the glass was not for “slamming” the door shut and that Brown caused the accident by misusing the glass panel., Brown sustained a severe laceration of the left, non-dominant arm. The laceration measured approximately 7 inches long and 3 inches wide at its widest point. Brown was taken by paramedics to a Kaiser Permanente hospital, where the wound was closed with approximately 50 staples. Brown claimed she is left with a disfiguring scar, measuring approximately 7 inches long, on the left arm. She alleged that as a result, she will need to undergo scar revision surgery. Brown’s past medical expenses included $3,388 for her for treatment at Kaiser and $1,330 for the ambulance. She also claimed her future medical expenses will total approximately $4,000, which would include the cost of the future surgery. However, she waived her request for medical expenses, and sought recovery of $100,000 in general damages for her past and future pain and suffering.