Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
209 F.3d 1170 (1998)
Mary Garcia (plaintiff) was shopping at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) (defendant) when she was struck by a cart pushed by a Wal-Mart employee and knocked to the floor, injuring her back. Garcia’s back had already been causing her pain prior to this incident. Before she was hit, Garcia owned and operated a burrito shop. After being hit with the cart, Garcia was physically unable to continue running her business, which she then turned over to her sister-in-law. At trial, Garcia’s treating physicians testified that she had suffered from chronic degenerative-disc disease before being struck. Several physicians and one psychologist testified that while Garcia might be suffering from physical pain due to her injury, a portion of the pain might also have been psychological. Garcia testified that she had not sought psychological treatment because she could not afford it. An economist testified to Garcia’s economic losses from her inability to pursue her business. Wal-Mart offered no evidence of available jobs that Garcia could perform, but instead only presented a medical expert who said that Garcia could do light or sedentary work. Wal-Mart submitted proposed jury instructions on mitigation of damages. The district court did not instruct the jury on mitigation of damages, finding that (1) Garcia was not required to seek psychological treatment she could not afford and (2) Garcia’s business required her personal involvement, such that hiring others to operate the business would be futile and not appropriate mitigation. Wal-Mart did not object to the district court’s refusal to instruct on mitigation. The jury found for Garcia and awarded damages for non-economic losses, economic losses, and physical impairment in the total amount of $350,000. Wal-Mart appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not instructing the jury on mitigation because Garcia had failed to mitigate by (1) not seeking psychological treatment and (2) not employing others to operate her business.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lucero, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.