Campodonico v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Background

Cosmo Campodonico sued Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, for injuries he said he sustained while test-riding a bicycle at a Wal-Mart store in Suffern, New York, on August 23, 2016. After a four-day trial, the jury found that Wal-Mart created an unsafe condition, that Wal-Mart’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Campodonico’s injuries, and that Wal-Mart was 49 percent responsible while Campodonico was 51 percent responsible. The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages. The judgment later reduced that amount based on the comparative-responsibility findings.

Campodonico testified that he squeezed the bicycle’s brakes but could not stop before crashing. Evidence from Wal-Mart employees indicated that Wal-Mart employees or contractors assembled bicycles, that Wal-Mart employees were responsible for checking the bicycles and their brakes, and that the employees placed the bicycles on the sales floor. The medical experts disagreed about causation. Dr. Joseph Bosco testified that Campodonico had an acute rotator-cuff tear caused by the accident. Dr. Scott Haig testified that Campodonico had a chronic, degenerative tear that existed for at least five years before treatment and was unrelated to the accident.

Wal-Mart’s Post-Trial Motions

Wal-Mart moved under Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment as a matter of law, meaning judgment in its favor despite the jury’s verdict. In the alternative, it moved under Rule 59(a) for a new trial. Wal-Mart argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that it created the dangerous condition or that the bicycle’s brakes caused the accident and injuries.

Wal-Mart also sought a new trial based on three additional arguments: that the court improperly excluded “Claims Run” and “Lawsuit Run” records; that the court used an improper question and instruction about whether the Wal-Mart store was reasonably safe; and that the court should have asked the jury specifically whether Campodonico’s injuries aggravated a pre-existing condition.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Applying New York negligence and premises-liability law, the court explained that Campodonico had to show a dangerous or defective condition that caused the accident and that Wal-Mart created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. The court concluded that the trial evidence permitted the jury to infer that Wal-Mart placed a bicycle with defective brakes in the garden center. Wal-Mart employees or its contractors assembled the bicycles, Wal-Mart employees checked them before placing them for sale, and no evidence showed that anyone else placed the bicycles in the garden center.

The court rejected Wal-Mart’s argument that another customer might have tampered with the brakes. Campodonico did not have to eliminate every possible alternative cause; he had to present evidence making alternative causes sufficiently remote that the jury could decide the case through reasonable inferences rather than speculation. The court also concluded that because the evidence permitted the jury to find that Wal-Mart created the dangerous condition, Wal-Mart’s actual notice of that condition was presumed under the New York law principles discussed in the opinion.

The court held that Wal-Mart had not shown that there was a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict or that reasonable jurors could not have reached it. Wal-Mart also had not shown that the verdict was seriously erroneous or a miscarriage of justice. The motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial based on insufficient evidence was therefore denied.

Excluded Records

Wal-Mart argued that it should have been allowed to introduce records showing that no other claims had been submitted to Wal-Mart about bicycles purchased at the Suffern store during the specified period and that no other lawsuits, apart from this case, had been filed concerning bicycle assembly at a New York Wal-Mart store during the specified period.

The court upheld the earlier decisions excluding those records under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. That rule allows relevant evidence to be excluded when its value is substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. The court found that the records could have caused confusion and invited speculation because the trial evidence did not establish what happened to the bicycle after Campodonico left the store. The court also noted conflicting evidence about whether Campodonico’s wife reported the accident to a Wal-Mart employee named “Dede.” The motion for a new trial based on exclusion of the records was denied.

Jury Questions and Instructions

Wal-Mart argued that the question asking whether the Wal-Mart store was reasonably safe was too broad. The court disagreed. The jury instructions specifically focused the premises-liability claim on whether the bicycle placed for sale had no brakes or defective brakes. When the jury asked whether the “premises” meant the bicycle or the store, the court answered that the premises was the store and the bicycle was part of the store. Reading the verdict question together with the jury instructions, the court found no reason to believe that the jury could have imposed liability based on a different dangerous condition. The motion for a new trial on this issue was denied.

Wal-Mart also argued that the court should have asked the jury whether Campodonico’s injuries were an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The court noted that Campodonico had not pleaded aggravation and had maintained that the accident acutely caused his injuries. The jury was instead asked whether Wal-Mart’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injuries. The court found that this question and the related instructions properly required the jury to decide whether the accident caused the injuries.

The court further observed that the medical experts gave conflicting testimony about whether the shoulder injury was acute or chronic. If the jury had accepted Dr. Haig’s testimony that the condition predated the accident, it could have answered that Wal-Mart’s negligence was not a substantial factor. Because the jury answered otherwise, the court found no error in the verdict form or instructions and denied the motion for a new trial on this issue.

Disposition

The court denied Wal-Mart’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial.