CASE: STA TE COURT CASE Discovery

Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

265 P.3d 456, 2011 Colo. texts 857 (2011) Supreme Court of Colorado

"Rather, any prejudice that the jury may have harbored was due to Wal-Mart's initial refusal to produce evidence of or admit the evidence of the grease spill." -Rice, Justice

Facts

Holly Averyt, a commercial truck driver, slipped in grease while making a delivery to Wal-Mart store number 980 in Greeley, Colorado. As a result of the fall, Averyt ruptured a disc in her spine and injured her shoulder and neck. These injuries left her unable to perform many daily functions. Averyt sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), alleging claims of negligence and premises liability.

Averyt's attorney sought evidence from Wal-Mart documenting the grease spill, but Wal-Mart denied the existence of the grease spill and did not turn over documents to Averyt. During opening statements on the first day of trial, Wal-Mart denied the existence of the grease spill. On that day, Averyt's attorney contacted the government of the City of Greeley and discovered a memorandum that referenced the grease spill and documentation of the cleanup of the spill. Averyt impeached a Wal-Mart witness' statements using the Greeley report.

The next morning, Wal-Mart informed the court and Averyt that it had located an assistant manager who remembered the grease spill and disclosed numerous documents that confirmed the existence of the spill, including documents from three companies that were involved in cleaning up the spill. From that point forward, Wal-Mart ceased to deny the existence of the grease spill and instead asserted that it had exercised reasonable care to clean up the spill.

The jury found in Averyt's favor and awarded her $15 million in damages. The trial court judge applied a legal cap on damages, reducing the award to approximately $11 million. Wal-Mart made a motion for a new trial, alleging nondisclosure of the Greeley re-port by plaintiffs before being introduced at trial and unfair prejudice of the jury. The trial court granted Wal-Mart's motion for a new trial. Averyt appealed.

Issue

Was the jury unduly prejudiced against Wal-Mart?

Language of the Court

Discovery is not required of public documents. In short, the report is a publicly available record that Averyt's attorney obtained from the City of Greeley. Averyt and Wal-Mart were on equal footing with regard to the ability to obtain the report. Any prejudice that the jury may have harbored was due to Wal-Mart's initial refusal to produce evidence of or admit the evidence of the grease spill. We do not find that the jury's award was the result of unfair prejudice. There is also adequate support in the record to justify the jury's award.

Decision

The supreme court of Colorado reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial, thus upholding the $11 million award to plaintiff Averyt.

Ethics Questions

Do you think that Wal-Mart willfully did not disclose the evidence of the grease spill? Did the jury consider Wal-Mart's conduct when it reached its verdict?