Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
From Legal Musings and Geekery
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
[edit] Citation
748 A.2d 961 (Me. 2000)
[edit] Date
1997
[edit] Facts
- Walter was prescribed Chlorambucil to combat cancer.
- Lovin, a Wal-Mart pharmacist, did not give Walter Chlorambucil, but instead, he filled her perscription with Melphalen -- a substantially more powerful medication.
- Initial side-effects included bruises on her arms and legs, skin rash, and low blood levels.
- She was later hospitalized on June 3, 1997 for gastrointestinal bleeding.
- π remained in the hospital for 5 weeks, during which time she experienced several transfusions, infections, and a catheter was placed inside her chest.
- Following her discharge, she was physically week, and required (initially) daily trips to the hospital.
- Her cancer did go into remission.
- Total medical expenses were $71,042.63
[edit] Legal Issue
- Is Wal-mart liable for the negligence of Lovin?
- Was a judgement nov appropriate?
- Did the court err in not instructing the jury about comparative negligence?
[edit] Procedural History
Superior court case on appeal. Judgment nov awarded by district court judge. Wal-mart moved for a mistrial due to comments made by π council in closing arguments, but the motion was denied.
[edit] Decision or Holding
Affirmed.
[edit] Reasoning
- The court did not err in granting judgement as a matter of law (because a reasonable jury could not have found Wal-mart not negligent.)
- The doctrines of comparative negligence and failure to mitigate are virtually indistinguishable in this case, and therefore the court did not err in instructing the jury of π's potential failure to mitigate, rather than instructing them about comparative negligence.
- When a court refuses to grant a new trial on the grounds of excessive damage, the ruling won't be overturned unless "clear and manifest abuse of discretion occurs.
[edit] Dissent
[edit] Closing Thoughts
[edit] Professor's Comments
Check out page 1064... it's the deposition notice. Who the heck is Hoyt Cinemas?
An argument could be that she read the medication documentation, which told her to call if she experienced a rash, and she waited several days.
Point: It can't be that "any" mistake means that you're liable.
Number two left out -- "Walter was sent home with a VIAL OF POISON!"
Sometimes actors that haven't done anything too bad, are still penalized with high damages. Torts are about redress.
[edit] Dialogue with Student
Q. What's unusual about the case name?
A. Normally when you're in an appelate level court, the person bringing suit's name is going to come up first. In this case, Wal-Mart is appealing, Walter is the respondant, and Walter is also the π.
Q. What court is this case in?
A. Supreme Court
Q. What happened in the supreme court?
A. One important thing to think about is that in the lower court, the decision about whether Wal-Mart was negligent, was decided by the judge.
Q. What is this citation thing?
A. Where you find the case.
Q. So where can you find the case?
A. You can find this case on page 961, of volume 748 of the second series of the Atlantic Reporter -- a regional reported published by West Publishing.
Q. What happened?
A. She suffered physical and mental illnesses after being given the wrong medicine?
Q. What kind of case is this?
A. Negligence?
Q. Which is?
A. A tort.
Q. What else does tort law cover?
A. A wrongful act?
Q. Okay, so you're going for the general principle. I want specifics.
A. ...
Q. Think about something that would fall into the category. What if I came up and threw your laptop out the window?
A. You'd pay for a new one?
Q. Well, what if I'm kind of a bully? I just don't think you should use your laptop today. What are you gonna do?
A. ...
Q. You're gonna sue me, right???
A Property damage, privacy, defamation... all those things fall under the idea of what a tort is. Things like, lost of consortium, if your spouse is injured. Sometimes it's easy to get caught up in this grand theory of the law and it's easy to get caught up in what that really means.
Q. Ms. Hill, generally speaking, how did the case get to this point? Give me a general timeline of what happened.
A. The judge decided that it wasn't a question...
Q. Go back farther.
A. Walter got the prescription...
Q. The first thing is the events happen... then what?
A. Walter's attorney filed a complaint.
Q. Events occured, Ms Walter hires an attorney, her attorney files a complaint. There's discovery... then what happens?
A. There's a motion to dismiss... no.
Q. What happens at the jury trial?
A. The judge decides that Wal-Mart was negligent.
Q. What does the jury decide?
A. The... $500.
Q. Uhm... no, $550,000. And how does that break down in terms of medical expenses?
A. The medical costs were on the order of $71,000
Q. So, $71,000 for medical expenses... which leaves us with $479,000 for pain and suffering. Just a minute, why is Wal-Mart the Δ here? Who screwed up? Did Wal-Mart do something wrong?
A. An employee of Wal-Mart?
Q. What did he do wrong?
A. This is under the premise of respondeat supperior. Lovin is an agent.
Q. I'm Walmart, I'm saying, look, we've got all these procedures in place. Is it fair that we're getting sued? Is respondeat supperior unfair?
A. ... no.
Q. Given that Lovin was really the person who caused the problem here. Could Mr. Walter have sued both Wal-Mart and lovin?
A. Yes.
Q. So why did she do it?
A. To get more money?
Q. And she determined she would get more money from just doing Wal-Mart, than Wal-Mart and lovin because...
A. Wal-mart's got the cash... Mr. Lovin is unlikely to have that cash. I think you're right.
Q. What's the diference between Mr. Lovin and Wal-Mart?
A. Okay, so Mr. Lovin seems like a pretty sympathetic guy. He said he feels terrible about it. He admits that he screwed up. He says he'll help her.
Q. From a policy perspective, why would it be a bad idea for Wal-Mart to sue Lovin?
A. If people know that Wal-mart sues its employees, who would want to work there?
Q. What did the judge find?
A. It's a judgement as matter of law -- no reasonable jury could have come to any other conclusion.
Q. What are the issues that the Maine Supreme Court has to decide?
A. Whether the court made an error in deciding that the jury didn't have to decide negligence.
Q. Mr. Derosa, looking at the very first page of the decision, who is this J. Caucins?
A. J is for Justice.
Q. Did Wal-Mart really fight the issue in court? As far as duty or breach?
A. No.
Q. Why wouldn't you have faught it in court?
A. I think the reasoning was that Ms. Walter never provided expert testamony as to what counts as breach of duty...
Q. We'll get to that. But you can make additional arguments. You could have said that, "We had no duty to Ms. Walter." Why wouldn't you fight the rest of the charges?
A. Well, it's difficult to contest the facts of the case.
Q. What kind of evidence is there against your client, here?
A. Walter's Dr. and the Dr. we hired admitted that the wrong medicine did lead to the injury.
Q. What argument would you make.
A. Walters was as negligent as us.
Q. Be more aggressive?
A. Walters was more negligent?
Q. Yes! What do you think that their point was? What are you going to say about causation?
A. Probably that it's going to be hard to argue against it.
Q. What can you use this for?
A. To show that she contributed to it... to reduce the amount we pay.
Q. Mr. Jason, what do you think about this?
A. She waited when she read that she should call were she to bruise.
Q. Is there a difference between saying, "We're denying responsibility." and "We're responsible."
Q. Why wouldn't you want to respond to the "professional basketball player" point? Is the defense council going to come forward and say, "This woman is not worth what a basketball player is?"
A. It's difficult to come back and make a point about how you can't compare this woman to a basketball player.
Q. Would it be possible to tell a jury about how much money you want?
A. I'm not sure, but it would be difficult to restrict attorneys in that fashion.
[edit] Related Cases
Sheltra v. Rochefort - mistrial due to abuse of discretion.
Gilmore v. Central Maine Power Co. - when an excessive damage award can be overturned.
Laferriere v. Paradis - Determining the issue as a matter of law (nov)
Tremblay v. Kimball - pharmacists owe customers duty of care -- "the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfullness, and vigilance."
