On Aug. 8, 2010, the plaintiff, a 53-year-old access representative for a healthcare provider, and her daughter entered a restaurant that sells smoothies and juice-based drinks in Encinitas. They placed their order, obtained smoothies, and then left. The plaintiff then returned to the restaurant by herself to obtain a smoothie for her son, who was at home. However, after her initial departure from the restaurant, a restaurant employee had washed the floor. As a result, upon entering the store, the plaintiff slipped and fell on the wet floor, landing on her back and striking the back of her head. The plaintiff sued the restaurant and its owners, alleging that the defendants created a dangerous condition and failed to warn of this condition. She also alleged that the owners of the restaurant were negligent in the training of their employees. The plaintiff claimed that an employee of the restaurant had mopped the floor after she had originally left, but failed to put out a wet floor sign prior to her return. She also claimed the employee failed to verbally warn her about the wet floor when she returned. According to the plaintiff’s counsel, one of owners ran the restaurant on her own several years before the subject incident, and hired and trained all of the employees, as well as created an employee manual. Counsel contended that the employee manual listed rules correlating to washing the restaurant’s lobby floor. Specifically, the plaintiff’s counsel contended that the manual instructed restaurant employees to “warn co-workers and customers about wet floors. Use the ‘wet floor’ sign. Ring the mop out so it is damp, not wet. Communicate about spills or wet areas.” Counsel further contended that the manual stated, “Some precautions to avoid accidents or injury…use a damp mop for cleaning the floor at night so it will dry quickly. Remember the ‘wet floor’ signs.” In addition, the plaintiff’s counsel contended that by August 2010, two of the other owners were running the restaurant, and maintained the same rules and employees that the previous owner had hired and trained. Thus, counsel asserted that the defendants were negligent for creating the dangerous condition of the floor, failing to warn of the condition and failing to properly train their employees. The defendants disputed the plaintiff’s allegations, and denied being negligent in the mopping of the floor or training of their employees., The plaintiff was not treated at the scene, but went to her doctor the following day. She claimed she sustained a concussion and, subsequently, post-concussive syndrome. The plaintiff claimed that she presently experiences headaches and an exacerbation of a pre-existing Chiari I malformation. She also claimed she experiences neck and back pain, along with burning sensation along her spine. As a result of her chronic pain and headaches, the plaintiff claimed she will need to continue to treat with a neurologist for the remainder of her life. She claimed she will also require Botox injections every three months for the next five to 10 years to treat her headaches. In addition, the plaintiff claimed she will require diagnostic MRIs to monitor her Chiari malformation now that it is symptomatic, as prior to the subject incident it was not. The plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeons recommended that the plaintiff undergo brain surgery to repair the Chiari malformation. They stated that such surgery would be done with the hope that the plaintiff’s symptoms would be reduced if the pressure in her spinal canal from the malformation is relieved. As a result of her chronic pain and headaches, the plaintiff, who is trained as a registered nurse, claimed that she is unable to return to her former occupation as an access representative for a healthcare company. The plaintiff’s vocational rehabilitation expert stated that the plaintiff would have difficulties competing in the labor market given her age, disability and absence from the market. The plaintiff’s husband filed a derivative claim for his loss of consortium as a result of his wife’s and damages. He alleged that he is now required to take on most of the household chores his wife used to perform, as well as taking care of his wife’s healthcare-related needs. Defense counsel disputed that the wife’s alleged and damages were caused her fall. Counsel also disputed the nature and extent of the wife’s and damages, and specifically denied that she would be unable to work because of the incident.