Rodrick v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 11-1085 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff sued Wal-Mart after she tripped on a rug in the store, asserting tort claims for her injuries. A jury ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and the district court subsequently denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding the admission of Wal-Mart's independent physician; there was no clear abuse of discretion where the district court refused to allow into evidence any exhibits or testimony regarding a previous incident that occurred on the same rug, in the same location prior to plaintiff's fall; and there was no abuse of discretion by denying the motion for new trial because of improper closing arguments.
Court Description: Civil case - torts. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting defendant's independent physician's testimony regarding his examination of plaintiff; district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit exhibits or testimony regarding a previous incident involving the rug on which plaintiff allegedly tripped; defendant's counsel's remark during closing argument concerning the character of the store manager did not require a new trial as the district court promptly sustained plaintiff's objection to the remark and gave a curative instruction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.