On Feb. 23, 2012, plaintiff Geneiveve Vasquez, 50, an unemployed nursing aide, was walking from a buffet food bar to her table at a Golden Corral restaurant in Hesperia. As she walked across a 10-foot by 3-foot safety runner at the exit from the dish room, one of her flip-flop sandals went underneath the mat, causing her to trip and fall. Vasquez claimed to her neck, left shoulder, lower back, left hip, and left knee. Vasquez sued the believed operators of the restaurant, Golden Corral Corp., California Corral Inc., Hesperia Corral, LLC, Johnny Rojo, and John Sanchez. Vasquez alleged that the defendants failed to properly repair and/or maintain the safety runner, creating a dangerous condition. The matter went to trial against California Corral Inc., and the other defendants were voluntarily dismissed. The plaintiff’s safety expert opined that the safety runner constituted an inherently unsafe tripping hazard unless it was recessed into the floor, glued down, or affixed to the floor with double-sided tape. However, the expert testified that he found that the safety mat was rolled up when stored and he speculated that the runner in question might have had ruffling at the edge. Thus, he opined that the restaurant should have used a heavier safety runner because of this. Defense counsel contended that the restaurant paid a service for the runner, following industry standards to protect employees and patrons from slip and falls due to drops and liquids from the dish room, and that Vasquez was the only patron that had ever tripped on the runner. However, counsel noted that the Health Department would not allow the use of glue or tape to affix the runner to the floor due to the close proximity to the buffet food bars. Counsel also noted that flip flops are different than other footwear, potentially modifying one’s gait, and that Vasquez’s gait was described by a treating physician as a shuffling gait due to a prior accident. Thus, defense counsel asserted that the runner was open and obvious and that the runner did not pose a tripping hazard to anyone exercising ordinary care and picking up their feet when they encountered the edge of the runner., Vasquez was taken by ambulance to St. Mary’s Medical Center, in San Francisco. She claimed she suffered strains and sprains of her neck, left shoulder, left hip, left knee, and lower back. She also claimed a maceration of the medial meniscus with an extrusion and grade II injury of lateral collateral ligament of her left knee. Vasquez had longstanding problems with her lumbar spine, including multiple levels of bulging discs. At the time of the accident, she was morbidly obese and had poorly-managed diabetes. However, she claimed the accident aggravated her pre-existing lower back condition, resulting in lumbar radiculopathy. The plaintiff’s spinal surgery expert was allowed to testify, despite the court offering defense counsel a mistrial, as the expert’s report was not timely disclosed. The plaintiff’s expert opined that Vasquez would likely require a future L4-5 and L5-S1 hemilaminotomy, formaminotomy, and right-side microdiscectomy. He estimated that the lumbar surgery would cost $196,735 and that Vasquez’s future knee treatment would cost between $4,901.02 and $5,102.08. The expert also recommended up to three steroid injections at $11,500, depending upon the control of Vasquez’s diabetes. Vasquez claimed that she could no longer work due to the accident. She claimed that even though she had been out of work since 2009, she was planning on returning to work, but that the accident forced her to effectively retire. She further claimed that only through the support of her ex-husband has she been able to survive. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Vasquez $1 million in total damages, including $20,198.16 in past medical costs (inclusive of $8,500 in diagnostic testing), $700,000 in lost earnings, $196,735 in future medical costs for the lumbar surgery, between $4,901.02 and $5,102.08 in future medical costs for the knee treatment, and unspecified damages for Vasquez’s pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Vasquez’s treating chiropractor failed to make any apportionment for Vasquez’s prior , essentially denying their existence despite the fact that the chiropractor had previously treated Vasquez. Counsel also noted that Vasquez admitted that she never saw the bills for her treatment, that she never asked to see them and that she had no arrangement to pay those bills. In addition, counsel noted that the plaintiff’s retained spinal surgery expert could not testify as to the actual medical charges and could only give estimates as to what might have been reasonable. Thus, defense counsel objected to the bills from Vasquez’s treating physicians, and asked to exclude all the bills as hearsay. Defense counsel contended that Vasquez had a history of multiple falls and that Vasquez was currently in a wheelchair due to her diabetes. The defense’s expert orthopedist conceded that nobody is made better by falling down, but he opined that Vasquez only sustained sprains and strains, at worst. The expert also opined that Vasquez only suffered a back sprain superimposed on her pre-existing degenerative condition and that Vasquez’s left knee had healed except for degenerative changes. Thus, the expert opined that nothing going forward was related to the subject trip and fall. Defense counsel contended that although Vasquez tried to claim lost earnings as a result of the subject accident, she had not been working since 2009 and her diabetes was serious enough to cause her to be hospitalized on the eve of trial.