Dolores Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 27991, 160 F.3d 358, 1998 WL 762437 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard, even if it only makes the plaintiff's claim slightly more probable than not, provided there is no indication the plaintiff is withholding unfavorable evidence or has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation.
Facts:
- In 1993, Dolores Howard, age 65, was shopping in a Wal-Mart store in Cahokia, Illinois.
- The incident occurred in the morning, which was the time Wal-Mart employees stocked the shelves.
- Howard slipped and fell in a puddle of liquid soap in an aisle, causing her to be injured.
- Howard testified the puddle was large, getting all over her coat, pants, shoes, and socks.
- The plastic container that would have held the spilled soap was never found.
- It is unknown who spilled the soap or how long it had been on the floor prior to Howard's fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Dolores Howard filed a personal injury lawsuit against Wal-Mart in an Illinois state court.
- Wal-Mart, the defendant, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Howard.
- Wal-Mart filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the magistrate judge denied.
- Wal-Mart, as appellant, appealed the denial of its motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a negligence action provide sufficient evidence for the case to go to a jury when circumstantial evidence makes it only slightly more probable that the defendant's employee, rather than a third party, caused the dangerous condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge
Yes. A jury's finding of liability can be sustained even if the balance of probabilities in favor of the plaintiff is only a 'hair's breadth.' The court reasoned that while Howard's evidence was thin, the jury could make a rational inference that a Wal-Mart employee was more likely the cause of the spill than a customer. The court found it significant that the spill occurred when employees were stocking shelves and that the container was never found; a customer who damaged a container would be unlikely to carry it away, whereas an employee might remove the broken container but fail to clean the spill. The court distinguished this from cases of 'naked statistics' (e.g., the bus hypothetical) where a failure to produce specific evidence implies the plaintiff is either withholding unfavorable facts or has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Here, given the minor nature of the case, it was unreasonable to expect Howard to conduct a more thorough investigation, and thus no negative inference could be drawn from the paucity of evidence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard in tort cases relying on circumstantial evidence. It establishes that a jury verdict can stand on a very narrow margin of probability, reinforcing the jury's role in drawing common-sense inferences. The court's analysis creates a crucial distinction between cases with minimal but logically coherent circumstantial evidence and those relying on 'naked statistics,' where the lack of specific proof suggests the plaintiff failed to meet their burden of investigation. The ruling may encourage plaintiffs in similar slip-and-fall cases with limited evidence to proceed to trial, while also guiding lower courts on when to let such cases go to a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Dolores Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.