Westphal v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9299, 68 Cal.App.4th 1071 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court may only interfere with a jury's award of damages on the grounds of excessiveness if the award is so large that it shocks the conscience and suggests passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the jury. There is no requirement that general damages for pain and suffering be proportional to the amount of special damages for economic losses.
Facts:
- In December 1994, Betty Westphal, a 55-year-old product demonstrator, slipped and fell on a wet concrete floor on premises owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Westphal landed with a 'pretty hard thump' on her back, immediately feeling pain in her left side, tailbone, and left foot.
- Following the accident, Westphal was diagnosed with various sprains and required assistive devices, such as crutches and a walker, for several months.
- Multiple health care professionals diagnosed Westphal with conditions including myofascial pain syndrome and Piriformis syndrome, which they described as permanent, chronic conditions that would cause lifelong pain.
- As a result of her injuries and chronic pain, Westphal was no longer able to engage in physical activities she previously enjoyed, such as bicycling and roller skating, and experienced constant headaches and daily pain.
- Westphal's friends and family testified that she was very physically active before the accident but afterward was in constant pain, could not walk quickly, and appeared much older.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty Westphal sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in California superior court (trial court) for personal injuries.
- A jury returned a special verdict finding Wal-Mart negligent.
- The jury awarded Westphal $8,000 in economic damages and $150,000 in non-economic damages, finding her 5 percent contributorily negligent, for a total judgment of $150,100.
- Wal-Mart moved for a new trial in the trial court on the ground of excessive damages, but the motion was denied.
- Wal-Mart (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, and Westphal was the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under California law, is a jury's award of $150,000 in general damages for soft-tissue injuries resulting in a chronic pain syndrome excessive when the special damages are only $8,000?
Opinions:
Majority - Scotland, J.
No. A jury's award of $150,000 in general damages for soft-tissue injuries resulting in chronic pain is not excessive, even when special damages are only $8,000. An appellate court views evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and must uphold a damage award unless it is so large that it 'shocks the conscience and suggests passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury.' The court rejected Wal-Mart's argument that the general damages were disproportionate to the special damages, noting there is no legal requirement for such a correlation. The jury heard credible testimony from medical experts that Westphal suffered from a permanent, incurable, and painful soft-tissue condition (myofascial pain syndrome), which significantly altered her lifestyle. Because the verdict was supported by substantial evidence of genuine and chronic suffering, it does not shock the conscience and is therefore not excessive.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the highly deferential standard of appellate review for jury damage awards, making it exceedingly difficult for appellants to challenge them as excessive. The court emphasizes that it will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the jury's, particularly in cases involving pain and suffering. The ruling validates chronic pain conditions like myofascial pain syndrome as a basis for substantial general damages, even when objective evidence (like X-rays) is absent and special damages are low. The imposition of sanctions for a frivolous appeal serves as a stern warning against using the appellate process to merely re-argue factual disputes that were lost at trial.
