740 Fed.Appx. 582 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-16875, Rios v. Walmart Inc.

Docket Nº:16-16875, 17-15476
Citation:740 Fed.Appx. 582
Party Name:Abby RIOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALMART INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Attorney:Steven Mack, Attorney, Black & LoBello, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff - Appellant Robert K. Phillips, Phillips Spallas & Angstadt, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant - Appellee
Judge Panel:Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 24, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 582

740 Fed.Appx. 582 (9th Cir. 2018)

Abby RIOS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WALMART INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 16-16875, 17-15476

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 24, 2018

Argued and Submitted October 17, 2018, as to No. 16-16875

Submitted October 17, 2018, as to No. 17-15476 [*] San Francisco, California

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01592-KJD-GWF

Steven Mack, Attorney, Black & LoBello, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff - Appellant

Robert K. Phillips, Phillips Spallas & Angstadt, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant - Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

In this slip-and-fall case, Plaintiff Abby Rios appeals the judgment for Defendant Wal-Mart on her negligence claim, which the district court entered after overturning the jury’s verdict for Plaintiff. Reviewing de novo, Wilks v. Reyes, 5 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir. 1993) (articulating the standard for general verdicts);

Page 583

Affordable Hous. Dev. Corp. v. City of Fresno, 433 F.3d 1182, 1193 (9th Cir. 2006) (articulating the standard for special verdicts), we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the verdict in Plaintiff’s favor.

The district court erred by holding that the jury’s answers to the first two questions on the verdict form conflicted with each other. Whether the jury returned a general verdict or a special verdict, the district court’s task was to determine "not whether the verdict necessarily makes sense under any reading, but whether it can be read in light of the evidence to make sense." White v. Ford Motor Co., 312 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphases added); see also Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1396 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the court has a duty under the Seventh Amendment to harmonize the jurys answers if possible). Under one reasonable view of the evidence...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP