On Sunday, April 14, 2013, plaintiff Antonio Amezquita, 47, a day laborer, was at the residence of Gary and Hope Thompson, in Moraga. Amezquita was hired to weed the hill on the back of the Thompson’s property. He claimed that during the process of weeding the hill, he stepped in a hidden hole and fell, his ankle. Amezquita sued Gary Thompson and Hope Thompson, alleging that the Thompsons failed to warn of the hidden danger on the property. Specifically, Amezquita claimed he never saw the hole either before or after he stepped in it. A witness who was also working on the hill at the time claimed to have seen both the hole itself and Amezquita stepping into the hole. Defense counsel argued that there was no duty to warn and that Amezquita should have been aware of the conditions of the natural hill. Counsel contended that the Thompson lived on the property for many years, never had any incidents on the hill, and were not on notice of any hole, other than gopher holes, on the property. Further, defense counsel argued that a gopher hole is not, by itself, a dangerous condition. The parties ultimately stipulated to an expedited jury trial with eight jurors and one alternate., Amezquita suffered an acute proximal fibula fracture/ankle dislocation, which was treated with closed reduction. Amezquita presented substantial evidence of the pain and suffering that he went through as a result of the accident, such evidence of extreme initial pain, long-lasting continuing pain, and eventual partial numbness in his foot. In addition, both of the plaintiff’s treating physicians testified that Amezquita damaged his ankle ligaments, that this type of injury was extremely painful, and that Amezquita was rendered unconscious during the closed reduction procedure. Plaintiff’s counsel elected to forego presenting a claim for recovery of medical costs and instead presented a wage-loss claim as Amezquita’s sole economic damages. However, the main evidence for the wage-loss claim was Amezquita’s testimony. Thus, the claim was brought in limited jurisdiction, and Amezquita sought recovery of the $25,000 maximum amount allowed. Defense counsel contended that Amezquita was responsible for his own .