On March 17, 2011, plaintiff Paradee Chularee, a student-affairs officer at UCLA, was struck on the head by a 10×10 garage-type rolling door while at work on the university’s campus. Chularee worked in a building housing UCLA’s engineering department. The space behind the door was originally intended to serve as an emergency-response room, to store materials for cleaning any spills of dangerous chemicals. However, by 2011, the space, described as a small, closet-like room, was used to store student files, and Chularee frequently needed to access those files. She often had to enlist the help of taller students or co-workers to open and close the rolling door. On the date of the accident, Chularee had attempted to pull the door closed by herself while standing on a chair, and it hit her on the head. She suffered severe , including intracranial hemorrhage, resulting in traumatic brain injury. Chularee sued the door’s manufacturer, Cookson Co., and the door’s installer, McKendry Door Sales Inc. (She also sued the successor-in-interest to Cookson Co., The Cookson Co. Inc., or TCCI, which was dismissed. Various other defendants were also named but all were dismissed, prior to trial.) UCLA intervened as an interested party regarding possible workers’ compensation ramifications. Chularee asserted causes of action under theories of negligence and products liability. Specifically, she alleged that the rolling door was defectively and negligently designed and manfactured, in breach of warranty, and was also negligently installed. She also claimed the product was being used in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendants, and the substantial danger of the door’s defect was not readily apparent. Counsel maintained that both McKendry and Cookson had a duty to warn UCLA about the danger of standing directly underneath the door that was installed. Her counsel argued that UCLA had originally selected a safer, chain-operated door during the building’s construction, but subcontractor McKendry Door Sales Inc. had installed a more dangerous version, which had to be manually pushed and pulled to open and close. Moreover, the companies had failed to provide an extension hook to help employees pull the door closed. The accident was unwitnessed, and Chularee gave multiple and inconsistent statements as to what occurred. Her counsel argued, with medical evidence in support, that Chularee could not recall the accident, because of the serious head she suffered. Counsel for McKendry argued that the door, as manufactured and installed, was perfectly counterbalanced to require 24 pounds of force to lift and 24 pounds to bring down. This was well within industry standards, and counsel argued that there was no evidence that the door came down “violently,” or in any other way inconsistent with its design, manufacture, or installation. Counsel also pointed to the fact that the door had functioned flawlessly for the five-years since its installation, and there were tens of thousands of similar models over the years without reports of a similar incident. The defense pointed to the inconsistencies in Chularee’s statements as evidence that the accident simply did not occur in the manner alleged., Immediately following the accident, Chularee did not show any symptoms beyond a headache. However, three days later, her husband rushed her to a local hospital emergency room, after she began speaking in gibberish and acting incoherently. Doctors said she’d had a stroke, a diagnosis supported by MRI scans. It was contended that the blow to Chularee’s head caused bleeding in her brain, which led to a blood clot and an increase in pressure inside her skull, resulting in a stroke. It was further contended that as a result of her brain injury Chularee will require around-the-clock nursing care for the rest of her life. Chularee can speak and was deposed in the case, but her memory is severely impaired. Her counsel argued that she cannot be left alone, is prone to seizures, and suffered a total loss of executive function as a result of the accident. Chularee’s medical expenses were projected at $8 million, and it was argued that she has lost at least $1 million in past and future earnings. Chularee’s husband asserted a loss of consortium claim. The defense counsel argued that Chularee’s claimed were not proximately caused by the alleged accident and that the any residual were not nearly as serious as she asserted. Counsel also produced evidence that Chularee had received treatment and medication for post-traumatic stress disorder prior to the accident and had been under a therapist’s care for years before the door allegedly fell on her head.