Margaret Aaron v. Kroger Limited Partnership I, No. 12-1809 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1809 MARGARET M. AARON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I, DEFENDANT - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cv-00606-RGD-FBS) Submitted: November 6, 2012 Decided: November 13, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John S. Wilson, WILSON & MCINTYRE, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Cathleen Kailani Memmer, Victor S. Skaff, III, GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM Margaret M. Aaron appeals from the district court s judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Kroger Supermarket, and its order denying her motion for a new trial. Aaron sued Kroger for injuries she sustained in a slip and fall at one of their stores. The jury returned a verdict for Kroger, and Aaron moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. On appeal, Aaron renews her arguments from the motion for a new trial that the trial judge s interventions into her case and comments to the jury compromised her right to a fair trial and that the district court improperly instructed the jury. We affirm. We review a district court s denial of a motion for a new trial based on partiality or bias for abuse of United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 237 (4th discretion. Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1272 (4th Cir. 1995)). A new trial will only be granted if the resulting prejudice was so great that it denied any or all the appellants trial. a fair, as distinguished from a perfect, United States v. Villarini, 238 F.3d 530, 536 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768, 776 (4th Cir. 1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of the record, we find that the district court s comments did not result in the necessary prejudice to 2 warrant a new trial. We note that the judge has the right, and often an obligation, to interrupt the presentations of counsel in order to clarify misunderstandings or otherwise insure that United States v. the trial proceeds efficiently and fairly. Cole, 491 F.2d 1276, 1278 (4th Cir. 1974) (citing United States v. Casiagnol, 420 F.2d 868, 879 (4th Cir. 1971)). The district court s interventions into Aaron s case were for the purpose of clarifying the evidence for the jury and ensuring that evidence was properly presented without undue delay. Further, any prejudice created by the district court s other comments to the jury was adequately cured. See United States v. Quercia, 289 U.S. 466, 472 (1933). Aaron next argues that the district court s instruction to the jury that it could find for the defense if the unsafe condition was open and obvious was improper. contends that adequately the district distinguish between created by the condition. refuse a discretion. 2010). proposed court s the instruction condition and Aaron did the not hazard We review the decision to give or jury instruction for abuse of United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 377 (4th Cir. We consider whether taken as a whole and in the context of the entire charge, the instructions accurately and fairly state the controlling law. United States v. Passaro, 577 F.3d 207, 221 (4th Cir. 2009). We conclude that the instructions 3 given did not misstate the law and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the distinction sought by Aaron would likely be more confusing than clarifying. Finally, Aaron argues that the district court erred by giving an insufficient instruction to the jury that it could find for the defense if the condition was so slight that a reasonable person would not anticipate any danger from it. Aaron did not object to the exclusion of this instruction during the trial, raising it for the first time in her motion for a new See United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941, 953 (4th Cir. 2010). Aaron trial. cites We to therefore no authority review that for plain indicates error. that the language desired was necessary to correctly reflect Virginia law. she Thus, the district court did not commit plain error by declining to modify its instruction in the manner sought by Aaron. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment and order. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
