On July 19, 2011, plaintiff Rowena Seto, 35, a litigation attorney, was riding her bicycle, while wearing a helmet, on eastbound Townsend Street in San Francisco. Rowena was riding in a designated bicycle lane and as she approached the intersection with 7th Street, she attempted to move from the bicycle lane to the right turn lane in order to turn onto 7th Street. In doing so, Seto followed the bicycle lane striping, which had transitioned from a solid line to a dashed line to allow traffic to enter the right turn lane. Seto claimed the striping led her directly over an area of deteriorated and eroded pavement that contained a deep, unmarked rut adjacent to the spur tracks. She claimed her tire dropped into that rut and became wedged between the deteriorated roadway and spur tracks, causing her bicycle tire to come to a complete and sudden stop. As a result, she was thrown over her handlebars and smashed against the sidewalk curb, sustaining severe to her right arm/elbow and head. Seto sued the city and county of San Francisco, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, and Union Pacific Railroad Co. She later amended her complaint to include National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) as a defendant. Seto alleged that the defendants failed to inspect, maintain and repair the deteriorated roadway on which she fell and that the city’s bicycle lane striping directed her over the deteriorated roadway and retired spur tracks. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the city has ownership, control and responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the roadway, making it liable for the dangerous condition of public property (the deteriorated roadway) on which Seto fell. Counsel contended that the city had incorporated that area of roadway, including the area alongside the spur tracks, into their maintenance plan and had numerous work orders in place spanning years prior to Seto’s fall. (The city admitted as much in its responses to written discovery and in the documents it produced.) However, counsel asserted that even though the city had notice of this dangerous condition, it failed to repair it. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that in the years prior to Seto’s fall, several bicyclists had fallen in the same area due to the same deteriorated pavement and that two of these falls also resulted in claims and a lawsuit filed against the city. Furthermore, counsel contended that documents produced by the city showed that several complaints had been made about the roadway in the area prior to Seto’s fall and that the city had conducted temporary fixes on certain parts of the roadway, but not in the area where Seto’s bicycle tires became trapped. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the city had ample notice of the deteriorated condition of the roadway, but did nothing about it. Plaintiff’s counsel further asserted that PCJPB owned and had responsibility for maintaining the spur tracks that run along Townsend Street, as well as maintaining the adjacent deteriorated roadway, according to San Francisco Municipal Code § 560 (Repair of Tracks and Pavement). Counsel contended that PCJPB contracted out the inspection and maintenance responsibilities for its tracks to Amtrak, but that Amtrak failed to inspect or perform maintenance on the spur tracks outside of the Caltrain rail yard. However, counsel contended that Amtrak had ceased all inspections of the spur tracks outside the rail yard several years before Seto’s fall. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the failure to inspect the spur tracks allowed for the roadway deterioration to go unrepaired and become worse. In addition, counsel asserted that the dangerous condition of the deteriorated pavement next to the spur tracks was so obvious upon inspection, and that the condition had existed for so long prior to Seto’s fall, that had PCJPB and Amtrak ever inspected the spur tracks, they would have discovered the condition., Seto was rushed by ambulance to the emergency room of St. Mary’s Medical Center, in San Francisco, where she was diagnosed with a concussion — as her head forcefully hit the curb, destroying her helmet. She also underwent X-rays of her badly injured right arm/elbow and was diagnosed with a comminuted radial head fracture with minimal displacement. Upon consultation with her orthopedic surgeon, Seto was advised that she would require surgery to repair her radial head fracture, which she scheduled for July 22, 2011. During the surgery, the operating team discovered that in addition to a radial head break, Seto also had a radial neck fracture of her right elbow, as well as significant medial collateral and ulnar collateral ligament . Furthermore, the ligaments surrounding her elbow were completely torn and her elbow had become dislocated. Given the complexity of Seto’s injury, her orthopedic surgeon consulted a specialist, who stepped in to assist with the surgery. During the nearly six-hour operation, the operating team determined that Seto’s right elbow was so shattered that the initial plan to insert screws to hold it in place was not realistic and that her elbow could not be saved. As an alternative, the surgeons sawed off a large portion of her elbow and replaced it with a metal rod, which had to be hammered into place. Following surgery, Seto remained hospitalized for three days. After returning home from the hospital, Seto claimed she was incapacitated and weak, and was unable to do even the most menial of tasks by herself, such as sitting up, eating, walking, going to the bathroom, brushing her teeth, and showering. She was eventually fitted with a series of braces and splints. She also began a nine-month course of regular physical therapy, essentially having to relearn how to use her right arm, wrist and hand. Seto claimed she still suffers from decreased range of motion, and has problems flexing and extending her right arm. She claimed her arm is quick to become sore and to tire, and that she must be cautious not to overexert it. The plaintiff’s medical experts further opined that Seto’s recovery has plateaued and that a full recovery may not be possible, in that Seto will never be the same as she was before her fall. Thus, Seto sought recovery of $32,145.48 in past medical costs (over $130,000 billed) and $74,903.87 in past lost earnings for the six months she was out of work due to her . She also sought recovery of general damages for her past and future pain and suffering based on the permanent disfigurement caused by her and surgeries, the loss of future earning capacity, and the negative impact on her personal life and marriage.