On May 18, 2009, at 2:45 p.m., the plaintiff, a 70-year-old homemaker, and her husband visited a store. As the husband opened the right double door for his wife, she entered the store and took approximately five steps when she allegedly tripped and fell. The wife subsequently injured her left leg. The wife brought a claim against the store for premises liability. In October 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the store. However, in November 2012, the court of appeal reversed the decision and remanded the case to a trial court for a new trial. The wife claimed that neither she, nor her husband, knew why she initially fell. However, she noted that there were two floor mats at the entrance of the store and that a photograph taken after the fall showed a floor mat rolled up in the area where she fell. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the wife’s foot became caught under one of the mats and caused her to trip. Thus, counsel contended that the mat should have been better secured to the floor. Defense counsel contended that neither the wife nor her husband knew what caused the fall, so the wife could have lost her balance or bumped into her husband, instead. Counsel also contended that the mats have been at the store prior to the incident and remain at the store now, without any prior or subsequent trips, slips or falls by any of the store’s thousands of customers., The wife fractured her left femur and was taken to a hospital, where she spent 52 days. She subsequently underwent two surgeries of external fixation, as well as an open reduction and internal fixation. The wife’s Medicare bills were reduced to $17,464. Thus, she sought recovery of damages for her reduced medical costs and for her pain and suffering. Her husband also sought recovery of damages, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress from having witnessed the incident.