Source: https://www.hallandalelaw.com/walmart-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:06:04+00:00

Document:
Below is a sample of some of the slip and fall cases Alan Sackrin has settled and won against Walmart by filing a lawsuit or by a pre-suit settlement.
Settlement Amount: $60,000.00 – E.S. v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
Settlement Amount: $59,999.00 – A. H. v. WalMart Stores, Inc. and Rubbermaid, Inc. – was wheeling a garbage can to purchase & some of the wheels fell off and she fell.
Settlement Amount: $58,000.00 – A.W. v. Wal-Mart Store – While shopping she slipped on a puddle of milk.
Settlement Amount: $50,000.00 – M. M. v. WALMART STORES AND WINN-DIXIE STORES – slipped on floor while putting meat in her cart & was told later that she slipped on a banana peel. Injured back & R knee.
Settlement Amount: $15,000.00 – M.M. v. Wal-Mart Store – While shopping in the garden department her cart became stuck on a rug/mat.
Below are appellate cases involving Walmart and slip and falls in their grocery stores. We believe analyzing these cases gives us a view into how Walmart approaches slip and fall cases.
Silvers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Shopper, who slipped and fell on way to get store cart, established prima facie case of store’s negligence. According to plaintiff it was raining on the day she went into Wal-Mart and, on her way toward the carts, she slipped and fell. Appellant was the plaintiff in this slip and fall case and appeals a directed verdict.
Evidence was sufficient to support conclusion that discount store knew or should have known of condition that caused customer to slip and fall. Wal-Mart’s primary point is that the court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict because, so it argues, there was no evidence from which the jury, without stacking inferences, could have concluded that Wal-Mart knew or should have known of the condition that allegedly caused Mrs. Reggie to slip and fall.
Customer filed action for personal injuries she received when she slipped and fell in store. The Circuit Court, Volusia County, C. McFerrin Smith, III, J., awarded customer $846,000 in damages, and store appealed. The District Court of Appeal, W. Sharp, J., held that customer failed to adduce evidence from which jury could reasonably have found wal-mart at fault. At around 6:00 p.m. on a Saturday in June 1986, Ms. King slipped and fell in the sporting goods area of a Wal-Mart store.
Whitworth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In this slip and fall action, the trial court granted Appellee Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment based on the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.In this slip and fall action, the trial court granted Appellee Wal- Mart’s motion for summary judgment based on the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact that Wal- Mart had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. REVERSE and REMAND for Appellee Wal-Mart to present evidence that it exercised reasonable care in maintaining its premises.
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Customer who slipped and fell in discount store stated cause of action for negligence against store manager. In their three-count third amended complaint, appellants alleged that appellant Lavetta White was injured in a slip and fall at a Wal-Mart Store.
Asher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Negligent mode of operation instruction was warranted by evidence at trial of slip and fall action against discount store. While a patron at a Wal-Mart, Ms. Asher slipped and fell on a wet area on the floor.
Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Store patron had no claim for spoliation of evidence against department store that was also defendant in patron’s underlying negligence action. Here, the Martinos allege that Wal-Mart’s failure to preserve evidence has impaired their ability to prevail in the very negligence claim they have brought against Wal-Mart.
West v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Renita West appeals a final summary judgment in her slip-and-fall action which was granted in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., appellee. The record contains sufficient evidence of a dangerous condition to create genuine issues as to material facts regarding both whether a dangerous condition existed and whether Wal-Mart had constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
Statement by unidentified declarant was not admissible as spontaneous statement in slip and fall action. Jenkins sued Wal-Mart for negligence alleging that she slipped and fell in its Orange City store as a result of a foreign substance on the floor.
Reffaie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
The trial court abused its discretion when it denied patron’s motion for a new trial based on store’s improper closing argument. Upon entering a Wal-Mart, appellant slipped and fell. Appellant, Heather Reffaie, challenges the trial court’s final judgment, which found her eighty percent comparatively negligent for her slip and fall at a Wal-Mart store, and the trial court’s denial of her motion for new trial.
Thompson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
It was reversible error for court to allow store’s expert’s surprise testimony, which had not been disclosed to patron prior to last day of trial. Thompson slipped and fell in a “puddle of yellowish-green liquid in a housewares aisle at Wal – Mart in Daytona Beach.”.
Bugay v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Appellant seeks review of an adverse summary final judgment entered in a slip-and-fall negligence case. Our review of the record satisfies us that genuine issues exist as to both the cause of appellant’s fall and whether a dangerous condition had existed for a sufficient period that appellee should have been aware of it.
O’Brien v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In this slip-and-fall action, the trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart. We reverse. A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence case must show that there is no negligence or that the sole proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of the plaintiff. To establish that there was no negligence, Wal-mart must demonstrate that it owed no duty to Mrs. O’Brien or that it did not breach a duty which it owed.
As the appellee concedes, the lower court erred when it granted a new trial on damages alone, in this slip-and-fall case, without first granting a motion for additur. See Waxman v. Truman, 792 So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); §768.74, Fla. Stat. (2004). Before a new trial on damages can be awarded, section 768.74. As the appellee concedes, the lower court erred when it granted a new trial on damages alone, in this slip-and- fall case, without first granting a motion for additur.
Harper v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
Entry of summary judgment in defendant’s favor was premature in light of pending discovery sought by plaintiff. Harper fell at a Wal-Mart store, and subsequently brought a suit against Wal-Mart.
Retail store’s investigative files concerning slip-and-fall injury were privileged work product. It was foreseeable that litigation might ensue from slip-and- fall incident in retail store, and thus, store’s investigative files were prepared in anticipation of litigation and were privileged work product. Compelling production of retail store’s investigatory files concerning alleged slip-and- fall injury in store was not warranted, considering that store sufficiently alleged files were protected as work product, and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their need for the files or show an undue hardship in acquiring equivalent information.
Defendant was entitled to remittitur after jury misconceived court’s instructions and increased verdict. This case arises out of injuries Mrs. Coleman received when she slipped and fell in an apparent spill of liquid detergent while pushing a shopping cart down an aisle in the Wal-Mart store.
Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Error in prohibiting cross-examination of experts concerning their reliance upon report in forming their opinions was harmless. She alleged that Wal- Mart knew of the condition or that it existed for a sufficient length of time that Wal- Mart should have known of it. It found that Hayes was 90% negligent and Wal- Mart was 10% negligent.
Disclaimer – These cases are being provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any way. The law is constantly evolving, including being replaced or modified. Therefore, we urge you to speak with an experienced Florida personal injury lawyer about your case to learn about your rights.
Please fill out the “Talk With Us” form above to ask a question or you can call Alan Sackrin at 954-458-8655. He promises to get back to you promptly. Ask now.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §768
 v. 
 v.