Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesattorneydiscoverytrialverdict
damagesattorneydiscoverytrial

Related Cases

Rogers v. Cato Oil & Grease Co., 396 P.2d 1000, 1964 OK 152
View Case »
Crellin v. Thomas, 122 Utah 122, 247 P.2d 264
View Case »
Stringfellow v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 3084286
View Case »
Fandrey v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2003 WL 21377834
View Case »
Perri v. Furama Restaurant, Inc., 335 Ill.App.3d 825, 781 N.E.2d 631, 269 Ill.Dec. 834
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 265 P.3d 456

Facts

Holly Averyt, a commercial truck driver, slipped in grease while delivering goods to Wal-Mart Store #980 in Greeley, resulting in serious injuries that ended her career. Despite Wal-Mart's denial of a grease spill, Averyt's attorney discovered a public document from the City of Greeley referencing the spill during the trial. The jury ultimately found in favor of Averyt, awarding her $15 million in damages, which included economic, non-economic, and physical impairment damages.

On December 13, 2007, petitioner, Holly Averyt, a commercial truck driver, slipped in grease while making a delivery to Wal–Mart Store # 980 in Greeley.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting Wal-Mart a new trial based on the alleged late disclosure of a public document and the jury's verdict being unsupported by evidence?

Wal–Mart contends that Averyt's attorney violated C.R.C.P. 26(e) by failing to disclose the Greeley report in a timely manner.

Rule

The court held that the rule requiring mandatory disclosure of certain discovery materials does not apply to public documents, and that a party has no duty to disclose documents that are equally available to both parties.

As a general rule, however, discovery is not required for public documents that are equally available to all parties.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that Averyt's attorney violated discovery rules regarding the Greeley report, which was a public document. The court emphasized that since the report was publicly available, Averyt had no obligation to disclose it. Furthermore, the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, and any potential prejudice was a result of Wal-Mart's initial denial of the grease spill rather than Averyt's actions.

Because we hold that Averyt had no duty to disclose the report, her alleged late disclosure could not have prejudiced the jury.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial, affirming that Averyt's late disclosure of the Greeley report did not prejudice the jury's verdict, which was adequately supported by the evidence.

For the reasons discussed above, we make this rule absolute and reverse the trial court's order granting a new trial.

Who won?

Holly Averyt prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the trial court's reasoning for granting a new trial was flawed and that the jury's award was justified by the evidence presented.

The jury ultimately found in favor of Averyt and awarded her $15 million in damages, including: $4.5 million in economic damages; $5.5 million in non-economic damages; and $5 million for physical impairment.

You must be