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

Averyt, a commercial truck driver, slipped on grease at Wal-Mart Store #980 in Greeley, sustaining spine, shoulder, and neck injuries that ended her driving career.
Averyt sued Wal-Mart for negligence and premises liability; Wal-Mart denied grease spill existence during opening statements.
Averyt obtained a Greeley City report about a grease spill through an after-opening-statement search; Wal-Mart later used the report in cross-examination and defense.
The trial court granted Wal-Mart a new trial, alleging untimely disclosure and prejudice from the late Greeley report disclosure.
The verdict awarded Averyt $15 million, later reduced by the trial court to the statutory cap for non-economic damages; Wal-Mart sought relief from the ruling.
Colorado Supreme Court held that the Greeley report was a public document not subject to Rule 26 disclosure and the verdict was supported by the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Rule 26(a)(1) apply to the Greeley report?	Averyt's counsel had no duty to disclose a public document.	Wal-Mart argues disclosure was required and late disclosure prejudiced them.	No; report not subject to Rule 26(a).
Was Averyt's disclosure of the Greeley report timely under Rule 26(e)?	Disclosures of public records need not be made under Rule 26(a); timing was not improper.	Late disclosure could prejudice Wal-Mart and warrant a new trial.	Timeliness not dispositive since no duty to disclose existed.
Did the jury's damages award support Wal-Mart's petition for a new trial on prejudice grounds?	Damages were supported by substantial evidence of medical and non-economic losses.	Late disclosure and prejudice justified a new trial.	No; damages supported; prejudice not shown.
Was the trial court’s reversal of the verdict warranted by discovery issues?	Discovery rules were not violated due to public document nature.	Late disclosure and surprise warranted new trial.	No; rule absolute; trial court abused discretion only on public-document exception.

People v. Wadle, 97 P.3d 932 (Colo. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial decisions)
Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2007) (abuse of discretion review and discovery sanction principles)
Silva v. Basin W., Inc., 47 P.3d 1184 (Colo. 2002) (purpose and liberal construction of discovery rules)
Cameron v. Dist. Court, 193 Colo. 286, 565 P.2d 925 (Colo. 1977) (liberal construction to avoid surprises at trial)
First Nat'l Bank of Canon City v. Campbell, 198 Colo. 344, 599 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1979) (trial court's damages determinations and deference to jury)
Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1992) (reasonable limits on damages review; invited error considerations)