Rodriguez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 March 2012
• Docket Number: C.A. No. N10C-01 -270 MJB
• Parties: ANNA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

ANNA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff,

v.WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

C.A. No. N10C-01 -270 MJB

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

Submitted: December 5, 2011

Decided: March 29, 2012

Upon Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial or Additur. DENIED.

OPINION

Gary S. Nitsche, Esq., and Michael B. Galbraith, Esq., Weik, Nitsche & Dougherty, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

David G. Culley, Esq., Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.

BRADY, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Anna Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") has filed a Motion for New Trial pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59. Plaintiff urges the Court to grant a new trial or in the alternative award Plaintiff additur. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, a review of Plaintiff's motion, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s ("Defendant") response, this court concludes Plaintiff's motion should be DENIED, because Plaintiff is entitled to neither additur nor a new trial.

II. BACKGROUND

This suit arises from an incident that occurred on August 3, 2008, in which Plaintiff slipped and fell on the floor in front of a water machine located on Defendant's premises. At the time of the incident Plaintiff was in the process of refilling a water container when she lost her footing and fell. Plaintiff claims that she fell because Defendant negligently permitted water to sit on the floor, which created the hazardous condition that proximately caused her to fall and injure herself. Plaintiff claimed to be suffering from extreme and unbearable pain as a result of Defendant's negligence. On January 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant seeking compensation for personal injuries due to Defendant's alleged negligence. The jury heard from various witnesses, including Wal-Mart personnel, Plaintiff herself, and three medical experts. Following trial, on October 26, 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant and awarded Plaintiff zero dollars ($0). The jury found that Defendant was negligent, however, its negligence was not a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury. On November 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting this Court to grant a new trial or in the alternative award additur. Defendants filed a response on December 5, 2011, requestingthat this Court deny Plaintiff's motion and not grant a new trial or award additur. As stated above, this court finds that the jury's verdict should not be disturbed and Plaintiff's motion, accordingly, is denied.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Delaware law permits this Court to set aside a jury verdict if it is inadequate as a matter of law. One method to set aside a jury verdict is by ordering a new trial. A motion for a new trial is controlled by Superior Court Civil Rule 59, which states, in applicable part, "[a] new trial may be granted as to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues in an action in which there has been a trial for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in the Superior Court."¹ A second mechanism of setting aside an inadequate jury verdict is by granting additur, which increases the plaintiff's award.² "The practice of additur is nothing more than making the denial of a plainitiff's motion for new trial contingent upon the defendant's willingness to accept a higher sum."³

When considering a motion for a new trial or additur, the Court begins with the fundamental principle that the jury's verdict is presumed to be correct;⁴ therefore, jury verdicts will not be disturbed unless the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence such that a reasonable jury could not have reached the same verdict.⁵ Moreover, in a jury trial, the function of fact-finding is reserved for the jury, not the court.⁶ A jury verdict should be set-aside only in the unusual circumstances where the award is so grossly outof proportion to the injuries suffered as to shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice.⁷ Accordingly, a motion for new trial or additur will be denied so long as there is a sufficient evidentiary basis supporting the jury's award of damages.⁸

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Contentions

Plaintiff contends the jury erred by awarding zero dollars in damages because Plaintiff presented uncontroverted evidence that she sustained injuries that were proximately caused by Defendant's negligence. Plaintiff cites Amalfitano v. Baker in support of her position. Amalfitano held that "[w]here medical experts present uncontradicted evidence of injury, confirmed by objective medical tests supporting the plainitiff's subjective [complaints] . . . a jury award of zero damages is against the great weight of the evidence."⁹ Plaintiff maintains, therefore, that once the jury determined that Defendant was negligent, as it did, the jury was required to award some damages because uncontroverted evidence supported by objective medical testing established Defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of her injuries. In support of her argument, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's medical expert, Dr. Richard Fischer, M.D., conceded during his deposition that Plaintiff sustained a soft tissue injury to her neck, lower back, and left knee as a result of the slip and fall. Plaintiff contends that even if the jury chose to accept the testimony of Defendant's one medical expert over both of Plaintiff's medical experts, the jury's zero dollar verdict went against the great weight of the evidence because all three experts agreed that Plaintiff sustained some injury as a result of the 2008 slip andfall. Further, Plaintiff maintains that objective medical testing, specifically the presence of muscle spasms, indicated that she sustained injuries. Therefore, Plaintiff contends that since all experts testified that she sustained some injury and their testimony was supported by objective medical testing, the jury's verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff argues the court must grant a new trial or in the alternative award additur.

B. Defendant's Contentions

In opposition to Plaintiff's motion, Defendant argues the jury was not presented with uncontroverted evidence that established Plaintiff was injured as a proximate cause of Defendant's negligence. Therefore, Defendant contends the jury's verdict must be affirmed. Defendant maintains that Dr. Fischer's impression that Plaintiff had likely sustained a lumbar strain as a result of her fall was based entirely upon Plaintiff's subjective complaints, as, according to Dr. Fischer, there was no objective evidence of injury. Defendant argues that, because Dr. Fischer testified that there was no objective evidence of injury at any time after the accident, the jury was free to conclude that the experts, including Dr. Fischer, based their conclusion on Plaintiff's subjective complaints. Further, Defendant contends that the jury was free to believe Dr. Fischer's testimony over Plaintiff's experts, and conclude that there was no objective evidence of injury because Dr. Fischer testified that Plaintiff would make herself "rigid"¹⁰ during examination which undermined the significance of finding Plaintiff suffered from muscle spasms.

C. Verdict Awards of Zero

The Delaware Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he law . . . does not compensate for every loss and the jury serves as the conscience of the community, sending a message to exaggerating and overly litigious claimants."¹¹ Additionally, Delaware law is clear that "[w]hen experts, in the process of formulating an opinion, rely upon the subjective representations of the plaintiff, determination of the credibility of the plaintiff's representations is solely within the province of the jury and the jury may accept or reject these representations as they see fit" and award zero damages.¹² Furthermore, it is equally clear that "where uncontested medical evidence links an injury to its proximate cause and is confirmed by independent objective testing, a jury award of zero damages is against the weight of the evidence."¹³ Additionally, as explained by the Delaware Supreme Court in Walker v. Campanelli, when the jury is presented with an expert's medical opinion that is based substantially on the patient's subjective complaints and is confirmed by objective evidence, but the significance of the objective evidence is "hotly contested," the jury may disregard that expert's testimony.¹⁴

Walker involved facts similar to the instant case. At trial, the jury heard conflicting testimony from the defendant's and plaintiffs' medical experts regarding the significance of MRI findings.¹⁵ The plaintiffs' expert opined that Walker, as a result of auto accident, sustained multiple injuries evidenced by an abnormal EMG study that"correlated with the abnormal MRI."¹⁶ One of the defendant's experts, however, refuted the plaintiffs' expert's testimony by stating that the positive finding on the MRI was not "clinically relevant."¹⁷ Further, a second defense expert testified "Walker exacerbated his pain symptoms during examination" and "he noted a 'dramatic overreaction of pain behavior,' an 'overreaction and exaggeration' by Walker, and signs of 'possibly even malingering.'"¹⁸ The jury returned a zero dollar verdict and the plaintiffs moved for a new trial.¹⁹ This Court denied the plaintiffs' motion²⁰ and the plaintiffs appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, which affirmed.²¹ The Supreme Court recognized that, at trial, all medical experts agreed that Walkers suffered some injury.²² However, the Court reasoned that "the jury could have concluded that [the defendant's] experts based their opinion on Walker's subjective complaints" because they contradicted the plaintiffs' experts' regarding the significance of the MRI findings—the only objective evidence that supported Walker was injured.²³ The Supreme Court went on to state "[t]his is not a case where uncontested medical evidence confirmed by objective testing...