Holden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Nature of the Case

Holden (P) appealed the judgment of $3,600 in her favor in a slip and fall case. The jury had found Wal-Mart (D) to be 60 percent negligent and Holden 40 percent negligent and found that the total damages were $6,000.

Facts

Holden (P) sustained personal injuries after she fell in a Wal-Mart (D) parking lot. Prior to the fall, she had been issued a handicapped parking permit because of problems with her knees and feet that made it difficult to walk distances. On the day of the fall, Holden parked in a handicapped parking space and when she pulled into the stall did not notice any holes in the surface. After she got out and walked to the rear of her van, she fell and experienced immediate pain particularly in her right knee. She discovered that her foot had twisted in a hole. She went to the emergency room and underwent knee replacement surgery and sued Wal-Mart for damages.

At trial, expert testimony was given by a physician that indicated that if Holden had not fallen she would have gone another 5-10 years without total knee replacement and also that prior to the fall, she had an 87% lower extremity impairment and a 35% whole person impairment and that after the fall this had increased to 97% and 39% respectively. The doctor who performed the knee surgery also felt that the fall hastened the need for surgery. The charges for these services amounted to about $25,000 with another replacement required in about 15-20 years at $40,000 barring complications.

The jury found comparative negligence by the plaintiff and returned a verdict of 40% negligence attributed to Holden and 60% negligence to Wal-Mart and found total damages of $6000. She appealed the award in her favor of $3,600.

Issue

May a party take an appeal if the award of damages so shocks the conscience that it necessarily follows that it was the result of passion, prejudice, mistake or some other means not apparent on the record?

Holding and Rule of Law

Yes. A party may take an appeal if the award of damages so shocks the conscience that it necessarily follows that it was the result of passion, prejudice, mistake or some other means not apparent on the record.

On appeal Holden contends that the district court erred in refusing to allow evidence regarding same or similar falls in other Wal-Mart parking lots and that the verdict was inadequate and unreasonable based on the evidence presented at trial. The amount of damages to be awarded is a determination solely for the fact finder, and its action in this respect will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by the evidence and bears a reasonable relationship to the elements of the damages proved.

Holden contends that the jury erred in its computation of damages, arguing that the jury made a mistake. An award of damages may be set aside as excessive or inadequate when, and not unless, it is so excessive or inadequate as to be the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record. If an award of damages shocks the conscience, it necessarily follows that the award was the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record.

This award was not the result of a mistake. It was the result of conflicting evidence at trial. Holden had a previous problem with her right knee, and there was conflicting evidence over the effect of the fall on her preexisting condition. The fall sped up the need for her to have knee replacement surgery. There was also evidence that Holden had been having similar knee pain causing difficulty in her life prior to the fall. It could have been clear to a jury that at some point, Holden would have had undergo knee replacement surgery regardless of the fall.

A jury is entitled to determine what portion of a claimed injury was proximately caused by the incident and what portion of the medical bills was reasonably required. It could have determined that the fall was the proximate cause of only a small portion of Holden’s damages. The evidence for such a determination is apparent from the record, and we will not disturb that determination on appeal.

Disposition

Affirmed.