On Nov. 12, 2015, plaintiff Phyllis Paxton, 72, a client advisor for Sterling BMW, tripped and fell at her place of employment in Newport Beach. She claimed she tripped on an elevated portion of tile, which was located at the transition point between the showroom and the customer lounge, which had recently undergone extensive renovations. Paxton claimed to her lower back. Paxton sued her employer, the operator of Sterling BMW, Sterling Motors Ltd.; the general contractor, Riat Construction Inc.; and the subcontractor that installed the tiles, SMP Tile Works. Paxton alleged that Riat Construction and SMP Tiles were negligent in the construction of the tile flooring. Riat Construction filed a cross-claim against SMP Tile Works, seeking equitable indemnity from SMP Tile Works, who performed the tile work. Sterling Motors was ultimately dismissed from the case based upon the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Riat Construction and SMP Tile Works recently performed a remodel of Sterling BMW, which left a raised tile edge at the transition between the showroom and newly renovated customer lounge. Counsel further contended that the area was identified by Sterling BMW and blocked off with cones while it was pending a repair. As a result, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Riat Construction and SMP Tile Works was negligent in its construction of the tile floor. Defense counsel conceded that a tile edge was slightly raised, but contended that the edge was less than one-quarter of an inch high and constituted a trivial defect. Counsel argued that Paxton violated Sterling BMW’s written safety policy when she walked across a clearly coned-off, taped-off area. Counsel also argued that Paxton did not trip on the tile, but, rather, over a safety cone that was placed near the area to delineate a path of travel away from the tile while it was in the process of repair. Defense counsel further argued that Sterling BMW was in control of the area and had a duty to warn of the tile edge upon notice until it was repaired. The defense’s biomechanics expert opined that, based upon Paxton’s final resting position and the location of the tile, Paxton did not trip where she claimed. The expert also opined that the tile edge was trivial and could not have led to the mechanism of fall., Paxton claimed she suffered a traumatic vertebral wedge compression fracture of the lumbar spine at the L1 region. She contended that due to her injury, she suffers from ongoing back pain and has been required to undergo treatment to alleviate the pain, including receiving several facet injections and trigger point injections. Her medical records indicated that she received $124,611.04 in claimable medical treatments. Paxton claimed that her pain caused her to retire five years early than she had planned. She also claimed that she will need additional pain management. The plaintiff’s treating medical expert testified that Paxton has been experiencing constant pain since the date of her accident. He also opined that the pain was likely to worsen and that Paxton would be in pain for the remainder of her natural life. The expert further opined that any surgical intervention would be complicated based on Paxton’s age and the nature of her injury. Paxton sought recovery of approximately $2 million, including $124,611.04 in past medical costs, $127,000 in future medical costs, $300,000 in lost earnings, and $1.2 million in general damages for her past and future pain and suffering.