Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Whittke
202 So. 3d 929
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In December 2009 Sandy Wittke slipped and fell in a Walmart store in Bradenton, Florida; she sued Walmart in August 2012.
- The case was tried in June 2015; after ~1 hour of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for Walmart finding no negligence by Walmart.
- Wittke moved for a new trial; the trial court granted the motion and set aside the jury verdict, reasoning that Walmart’s failure to follow its internal safety policies caused the injuries.
- Walmart appealed, arguing the trial court erred by treating violation of internal policies as per se negligence and that competent substantial evidence supported the jury verdict.
- The Second District reversed, concluding the trial court erroneously equated internal policy violations with the legal standard of care and abused its discretion in granting a new trial. The court remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violation of a defendant’s internal safety policies alone establishes breach of the legal standard of care | Wittke argued Walmart’s failure to follow its own safety policies caused her injuries and thus constituted negligence | Walmart argued internal policies do not by themselves establish the legal standard of care and are only admissible as evidence relevant to the standard of care | Court held internal rules do not themselves fix the legal standard of care; trial court erred by treating policy violation as per se negligence |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on weight-of-evidence grounds | Wittke contended the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence regarding breach and causation | Walmart argued there was competent substantial evidence supporting the verdict (surveillance video, warning cone, admission by Wittke, witness testimony) and the new-trial grant was legal error/abuse of discretion | Court held the motion presented a principally legal issue (standard of care); because the trial court’s new-trial grant rested on legal error, reversal and reinstatement of the jury verdict was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayo v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 686 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (internal rules may be admissible but do not themselves fix the legal standard of care)
- Pollock v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Patrol, 882 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2004) (written policies/manuals may be instructive but do not establish a legal duty to the public)
- Dominguez v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 187 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (internal safety policies do not themselves establish the standard of care owed to plaintiffs)
- Steinberg v. Lomenick, 531 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (existence of an internal rule does not itself fix the standard of care)
- Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2013) (appellate review framework when a new-trial order is premised on an error of law; heightened abuse-of-discretion standard)