Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Dolores Howard (plaintiff) sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) (defendant) in state court for negligence. Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. At trial, Howard presented evidence that soap was on the floor near shelves containing soap and that she slipped on the soap and was injured. Howard claimed that Wal-Mart was responsible because its employees had spilled the soap and failed to clean it. Howard had no direct evidence that an employee had spilled the soap. Howard relied solely on probabilistic evidence that (1) she fell in the morning, (2) the employees usually stocked shelves in the morning, and (3) the spilled soap’s original container was never located. Howard argued it was unlikely that a customer had damaged a container, causing it to spill, and then carried away a messy, partially filled container in the customer’s cart. Rather, Howard claimed it was more likely that an employee, perhaps while stocking the shelves, had caused the spill. Howard’s negligence claim was subject to a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. This meant Howard could prevail only if the jury found that it was more likely than not that an employee had spilled the soap. Wal-Mart moved for judgment as a matter of law. Wal-Mart argued that Howard had not presented enough direct evidence to meet this evidentiary burden and, therefore, that her claim should not go to the jury. The trial court denied Wal-Mart’s motion and allowed the jury to decide the case. The jury awarded Howard $18,750 in damages. Wal-Mart appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.