McConnell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
995 F. Supp. 2d 1164
D. Nev.2014Background
- Slip-and-fall at Wal-Mart in Las Vegas after floor was mopped and left wet without warning or barrier (Dec 10, 2010).
- Plaintiff Urban McConnell alleges defendant negligent; punitive damages sought previously but dismissed; two Motions in Limine (Nos. 47 and 48) pending.
- Prior removal and summary judgment posture discussed; trial scheduled for Feb. 2014; court to rule on admissibility of evidence.
- Court defines motions in limine as pretrial evidentiary rulings, with cautions that rulings are preliminary and can change during trial.
- Motion No. 47 seeks to exclude expert John Peterson as unqualified or unhelpful; motion No. 48 seeks collateral-source/write-down evidence and other evidentiary exclusions.
- Court grants some rulings in part and denies others; rulings address expert qualification, collateral-source evidence, trial conduct, and specific witness/testimony exclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Peterson as expert | Peterson qualified via retail safety experience | Peterson not qualified; testimony would confuse jury | Denied to the extent qualified; otherwise excluded if unqualified or unhelpful |
| Collateral source write-down evidence | Write-downs are collateral payments; admissible | Write-downs should be excluded under collateral source rule | Write-downs are treated as collateral-source payments; evidence barred; no prejudicial use allowed |
| Exclusion of financial condition evidence | Not relevant; punitive damages no longer in play | Financial condition irrelevant to liability | Granted; no financial-condition evidence permitted |
| Surveillance footage references | Possible footage exists; discovery issue | No footage; avoid misrepresentations | Partially granted; plaintiff may discuss existence/non-existence with limited scope; no admissible footage unless produced |
| Witness disclosures and trial conduct | W Holland timely disclosed; useful | Not timely disclosed; prejudicial | No exclusion for Holland; use and timing addressed at trial; deposition issues handled at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Proctor v. Castelletti, 911 P.2d 853 (Nev. 1996) (collateral source rule prohibits admission of collateral payments)
- Klinke v. Maxwell, 286 P.3d 593 (Nev. 2012) (distinguishes workers’ compensation payments; write-downs context limited)
- Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 325, 257 P.3d 1130 (Cal. 2011) (discusses whether write-downs negate damages; collateral source rule relevance)
- Tri-County Equipment & Leasing, LLC v. Klinke, 286 P.3d 593 (Nev. 2012) (statutory interpretation on collateral sources and write-downs)
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 1984) (trial rulings on in limine subject to change; admissibility depends on context)