On April 1, 2011, at approximately 1:30 p.m., plaintiff Florencio Balderas, 80, a retiree, entered an aisle at a Target store in Pacoima that contained a low-elevated shelf, or “end cap,” which was vacant of merchandise. Balderas, who had just undergone cataract surgery, tripped and fell over the end cap, landing on his face. He suffered multiple to his face and head, as well as to his lower back, left knee, and both ankles. Balderas sued Target Corp. and the store’s manager, Jim Greenis. Balderas alleged that the defendants failed to properly maintain the aisle and that their negligence created a dangerous condition. Greenis was ultimately dismissed from the case before he was ever served. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Target owed patrons, including Balderas, a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in such a manner as to avoid exposing patrons to an unreasonable risk of injury. Counsel contended that the vacant end cap was a latent danger, considering customers rely on the end caps being stocked, and because the color of the end cap blended with the surrounding floor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Target breached its duty to Balderas by failing to stock the end cap or warn of the danger. The plaintiff’s safety expert testified that Target owed its patrons a duty — especially to an elderly man who had just undergone cataract surgery — and opined that the empty end cap display was not an open and obvious condition, as it is highly unusual for an end cap to not be stocked with merchandise. The expert further testified that the lack of visual obstructions was irrelevant, since business owners know that patrons are normally looking at signs and merchandise, and not focusing on their feet. Defense counsel contended that the end cap is a large, permanent fixture, which is open and obvious and not a hazardous condition, and that Target did not breach its duty of care to patrons by failing to stock the end cap. Counsel also contended that the area was properly maintained by Target and that Balderas did not exercise due care in perusing the aisles. Thus, defense counsel argued that Balderas’ own negligence contributed to the incident and his own . The defense’s safety expert opined that there was a sufficient difference in color between the white floor and the white end cap display, such that all reasonable shoppers would immediately notice the difference., Balderas sustained multiple, complex facial lacerations, a concussion, head trauma, and vision impairment. He also sustained a medial meniscus tear of his left knee, and soft-tissue strains and sprains of his lower back and both ankles. Balderas was subsequently taken by ambulance to an emergency room and, on April 1, 2011, he underwent arthroscopic surgery on his left knee. Balderas claimed ongoing neurological issues stemming from his head injury, including problems with memory, concentration, occipital neuralgia, and traumatic headaches. He claimed no major physical residuals, other than claiming he can no longer garden, help around the house, or do other such other activities, but he alleged he requires future care, consisting of occipital nerve blocks and epidurals for headaches. Balderas also claimed that he requires surgeries for his deteriorated vision, as well as extensive orthopedic and neurological care. Thus, Balderas sought recovery of $18,140.36 in past medical costs and $18,000 in future medical costs. He also sought recovery of $300,000 in damages for his past pain and suffering and $800,000 in damages for his future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Balderas’ were limited to soft-tissue that had resolved within several months of the incident and that Balderas suffered from no residual issues at the time of trial.