IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40429
(Summary Calendar)
BURNETT D. WALLACE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant,
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(2:99-CV-37)
--------------------
September 29, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this appeal from an adverse judgment implementing the jury
verdict for damages in a personal injury suit, Defendant-Appellant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. complains that the district court erred in
submitting the issue of Wal-Mart’s negligence to the jury and in
refusing to grant judgment as a matter of law (jml) because (1) no
evidence of the proper standard of care was adduced, (2) no
evidence of any breach of the duty of care by Wal-Mart was adduced,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
and (3) as a matter of law Plaintiff-Appellee Wallace broke any
chain of causation by failing to heed Wal-Mart’s warning. Wal-Mart
complains in the alternative that the district court should have
granted a new trial because of insufficient evidence to support the
jury’s findings of negligence and comparative responsibility with
respect to Wal-Mart or its findings of comparative responsibility
and damages with respect to Wallace. Discerning no reversible
error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record from this jury trial and analyzed
(1) the evidence, both conflicting and undisputed, on which the
jury based its verdict; (2) the jury instructions; (3) the legal
arguments and assignments of error as reflected in Wal-Mart’s
appellate brief; and (4) the applicable law as cited to us by the
parties in their respective appellate briefs, which review
satisfies us that the district court committed no reversible error
in conducting the trial and that the jury verdict is based on
substantial evidence, given the prerogative of the jury to make
credibility calls, and is not against the great weight of the
evidence. The record makes clear that the jury thoughtfully
evaluated the actions of Wallace and of Wal-Mart’s agent, Mr.
Bierle, both as to the warning given by Bierle to Wallace and as to
the actions of those persons before and during the incident that
resulted in Wallace’s knee injury, and we conclude that the jury’s
assignment of comparative negligence between the parties is not
unreasonable under the circumstances. Neither do we find
2
unreasonable the jury’s assessment of damages. Finally, after
reviewing Wal-Mart’s extensive discourse on tort law applicable to
this case, we discern no reversible error in the rulings of the
district court, including without limitation, its refusal to grant
either a jml or a new trial. Nothing in the jury verdict or the
manner the district court conducted this jury trial impresses us as
remarkable in any way; to the contrary, the record reflects about
as straightforward a personal injury jury trial as we ever
encounter on appeal and, given our standard of review of jury
verdicts under such circumstances, one that does not suggest the
need or propriety of granting either a jml or a new trial. The
judgment of the district court is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
3