On July 19, 2010, plaintiff Shenell Day, 6, was injured when a wrought iron gate closed too far and tipped over, striking her in the forehead and causing a laceration. The accident occurred at a mixed-use property in Los Angeles, where Day and her family were tenants. Day, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Trnelda Tucker, sued Susan Senemar, the property owner and manager, as well as the Susan Senemar 2002 Trust and Susan Yousefi (Senemar’s maiden name). Plaintiff sued for premises liability, in that Senemar allegedly failed to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. The matter proceeded to a bench trial when the parties waived their rights to a jury. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Senemar was negligent, in that her failure to inspect the gate was below the standard of care for a reasonable property owner/manager. He claimed that Senemar had notice of the gate’s condition (and that the gate was unreasonably dangerous and posed an unreasonable risk of harm), as she stipulated to the fact that several weeks prior to the accident in question, a neighbor had called to inform her that a car had struck and damaged the gate. Senemar contended that she had no knowledge of the gate tipping over prior to Day’s accident, and argued that she had no duty to inspect the gate. She further argued that Tucker was comparatively negligent, as the accident occurred while Shenell’s mother had gone inside the house to use the restroom and left Shenell and her younger sister in the yard to play unattended., Shenell was taken by ambulance to the emergency room from the scene of the accident. She sustained a three-inch laceration to her forehead, and received 13 stitches. She received minimal follow-up care, in the form of a neurological consultation and MRI of her head. Day now has a residual vertical scar on her forehead. She consulted with a plastic surgeon, and may undergo scar revision surgery in the future. In addition to the permanent physical scar, Day also claimed emotional distress and embarrassment from being teased by other children. She claimed $8,429.77 in damages for past medical costs, and further sought $10,000 for possible future revision surgery, as well as damages for her pain and suffering. Senemar contended that the scar was not that bad, and that scar revision surgery would improve the scar by more than 90 percent. Defendants further contended that Day did not suffer any mental or emotional distress as a result of the physical injury.