In re Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a trial court's order that granted Defendant Wal-Mart Stores a new trial based on a purportedly untimely disclosure and a jury verdict that allegedly was not supported by the evidence and instead was the result of prejudice. In 2007 Petitioner Holly Averyt, a commercial truck driver, slipped in grease while making a delivery to a Wal-Mart Store in Greeley. As a result of her fall, Petitioner's injuries ended her career as a truck driver and left her unable to perform many daily functions. Petitioner sued Wal-Mart, alleging claims of negligence and premises liability. During discovery, Petitioner unsuccessfully sought to obtain records from Wal-Mart documenting the grease spill. Despite Wal-Mart's persistent denial of the grease spill, Petitioner's attorney continued to seek evidence to verify its existence. While Wal-Mart was making its opening statement and claiming that there had been no grease spill, Petitioner's attorney received an email on his mobile telephone containing a memorandum referencing a grease spill and a related investigation and cleanup at a different Greeley Wal-Mart. During a recess at trial, Wal-Mart's attorney asked Petitioner's attorney whether he had been reading from a document when he questioned a witness. Petitioner's attorney then gave Wal-Mart's attorney a copy of the report. After this exchange, and before Wal-Mart began cross-examining the witness, Wal-Mart objected outside the presence of the jury to Petitioner's use of the report during direct examination. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury's award was supported by substantial evidence, and was not the result of prejudice, finding that the report in question was one available to both parties. The Court refused to reverse the jury's award and grant a new trial. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's order. View "In re Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law