“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 Walmart store # 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. (Walmart), alleging claims of negligence and premises liability. Averyt’s attorney sought evidence from Walmart documenting the grease spill, but Walmart denied the existence of the grease spill and did not turn over documents to Averyt. During opening statements on the first day of trial Walmart denied the existence of the grease spill. On that day, a colleague of 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. The next day, Averyt called Jonnie Shommer as a witness, who was the corporate representative designated by Walmart for the case. Averyt impeached the witness’ statements using the Greeley report. Walmart requested a recess, at which time Averyt’s attorney gave Walmart’s attorney a copy of the Greeley report. During cross-examination of Shommer, Walmart introduced the Greeley report. The next morning Walmart informed the court and Averyt that it had located an assistant manager who remembered the grease spill, and disclosed numerous documents that collaborated the existence of the spill, including documents from three companies that were involved in cleaning up the spill. From that point forward, Walmart 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. Walmart made a motion for a new trial, alleging nondisclosure of evidence and unfair prejudice of the jury. The trial court granted Walmart’s motion for a new trial. Averyt appealed. 

Issue: Was the jury unduly prejudiced against Walmart? 

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. In granting Wal-Mart’s motion for a new trial, the trial court found that the jury’s award was excessive, not supported by the evidence, and “could only be the result of prejudice and bias and the jury’s desire to punish Wal-Mart.” 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. Unlike the trial court, 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. 

Ethics Questions: Do you think that Walmart willfully did not disclose the evidence of the grease spill? Did the jury consider Walmart’s conduct when it reached its verdict?