Bonnie Rodrick v. Wal-Mart Stores East
666 F.3d 1093
8th Cir.2012Background
- Rodrick tripped on a rug in front of a Wal-Mart water fountain in 2004 in Maryville, Missouri, injuring her left hip and later requiring multiple surgeries.
- Evidence and testimony at trial centered on the rug condition and Wal-Mart’s handling of the incident; medical causation and damages were contested.
- Rodrick sued Wal-Mart in 2007 under diversity jurisdiction, alleging negligence related to the rug and store maintenance.
- A four-day trial resulted in a jury verdict for Wal-Mart; Rodrick moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- On appeal, Rodrick challenges (i) admission of Dr. Simon’s IME-based testimony, (ii) exclusion of evidence of a prior rug incident for impeachment, and (iii) closing-argument comments about a store manager’s character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Simon’s testimony was improperly admitted under Rule 26(a)(2). | Rodrick argues Simon’s report failed Rule 26(a)(2) and tainted trial. | Wal-Mart contends any Rule 26 violation was harmless and testimony limited to observations. | Harmless error; admission not prejudicial enough to reverse. |
| Whether prior rug incident evidence was admissible for impeachment. | Rodrick sought impeachment about prior incident to challenge manager’s testimony. | Wal-Mart argued incidents were dissimilar and not probative of knowledge of risk. | No reversible error; district court did not abuse discretion in excluding it. |
| Whether closing arguments about juror voir dire and good character of the store manager were plainly improper. | Rodrick contends remarks biased the jury. | Wal-Mart’s remarks were properly curative and not clearly injurious. | Not reversible; closing remarks not plainly prejudicial given timely objection and cure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 F.3d 929 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (harmless-error factors for Rule 26 disclosures)
- Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 2002) (harmless-error analysis for Rule 26 violations)
- Stacy v. Truman Med. Ctr., 836 S.W.2d 911 (Mo. 1992) (evidence of knowledge/warning in negligence cases)
- Hicks v. Six Flags Over Mid-America, 821 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1987) (balancing probative value vs. prejudice in collateral issues)
- Wegener v. Johnson, 527 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard in trial rulings)