Wal-Mart Slip and Fall Lawsuit Verdict of $10M Approved on Appeal

|

The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a $10 million verdict in a slip-and-fall lawsuit filed against Wal-mart by a truck driver who suffered spinal injuries while making a delivery. 

The complaint was filed by Holly Averyt, 41, who slipped and fell on ice and grease at a Wal-Mart in Greeley, Colorado in December 2007.

Averyt suffered spinal damage from the fall, had to undergo multiple surgeries, and could not work following the work accident. As a result of the injury, Averyt’s truck, which was also her home, was repossessed and she suffered $500,000 in medical expenses.

Ultra-Processed-Foods-Lawsuit-Lawyer
Ultra-Processed-Foods-Lawsuit-Lawyer

A Colorado jury awarded Averyt $15 million, which was later reduced to $10 million due to Colorado tort reform laws. However, a Colorado judge granted Wal-Mart a new trial in the case in February, saying that Averyt’s legal team was late in turning over evidence of the grease slick that caused the fall.

Following appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, the trial judge’s order for a new trial was overturned and the verdict was reinstated. The appeals court pointed out that the evidence in question was of public record with the City of Greely, which Averyt obtained by simply calling the city.

“The Greeley report is a prime example of the kind of document that a party should not be required to disclose,” the court’s opinion states. “Averyt and Wal-Mart were on equal footing with regard to the ability to obtain the report.”

The justices rejected arguments that the evidence prejudiced the jury unfairly, and thus led to an excessively punishing financial award.

“Rather, any prejudice that the jury may have harbored was due to Wal-Mart’s initial refusal to produce evidence of or admit the existence of the grease spill,” Colorado Supreme Court Justice Nancy Rice wrote. “Regardless of the effects of Wal-Mart’s imprudent tactics, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s award.”


1 Comments


  1. Robin

    What about Surveillance Camera’s? It would that viewing the mannerisms and even zooming may have had an effect. Documents, yes must meet deadline.


Share Your Comments

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

MORE TOP STORIES

A BioZorb tissue marker lawsuit representing five women from across the country claims that the recalled implant was defectively designed, resulting in a recall and numerous complications.
Suboxone lawyers will meet today with a federal judge, to discuss the status of thousands of tooth decay lawsuits brought over the opioid treatment film strips.
The MDL Judge will hear presentations from Depo-Provera lawyers seeking leadership positions during a two day hearing on March 13th and 14th, as a growing number of women continue to file brain tumor lawsuits against the makers of the popular birth control shot.