Nsheiwat V. Walmart, Inc.
Case Background
Cause
Injury
Damages
As a result of the injuries described, the Plaintiff claimed various damages in her complaint. These included medical expenses and lost wages. She alleged that she experienced ongoing pain, inconvenience, embarrassment, and mental distress, which she has already endured and will likely continue to suffer.
Additionally, she lost her ability to work and support herself. The Plaintiff was deprived of everyday pleasures, leading to a decline in her overall well-being and a loss of balance in life. Furthermore, her health, strength, and vitality were significantly impaired.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
- Plaintiff(s): Raya Nsheiwat
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Candy K. Pastrnak | Alejandro Brito | Casey C. Kannenberg | Gary P. Hollander | George James Terwilliger, III | Taylor Jordan
- Defendant(s): Walmart, Inc.
- Counsel for Defendant(s): Benjamin Michael Weston | Alexandra Galbraith | J. Michael Kvetan | Patrick McDonnell
Claims
Plaintiff alleged that Wal-Mart, through its agents, employees, or representatives, failed in its duties and was responsible for one or more negligent acts or omissions. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed:
a. Wal-Mart failed to properly supervise the common areas, leaving the parking lot and sidewalk unsafe for the Plaintiff, Raya Nsheiwat, and others. The hazards should have been recognized as potentially harmful.
b. Wal-Mart failed to maintain the parking lot in a safe condition, causing the Plaintiff to slip and fall due to materials on the ground that were known or should have been known to Wal-Mart.
c. Wal-Mart failed to inspect the parking lot properly, allowing hazardous materials or items to remain that could cause injury.
d. Wal-Mart failed to maintain the premises in a safe condition for the Plaintiff and others.
e. Wal-Mart failed to comply with Iowa state laws and applicable federal regulations.
f. Wal-Mart failed to exercise the proper care under the circumstances.
g. Wal-Mart was otherwise negligent in its actions.
Defense
Walmart denied the allegations of negligence and asserted affirmative defenses. Wal-Mart characterized the condition as “transitory” and argued it could not be directly linked to its employees. The company believed it was just as likely that a customer had caused the hazard, and therefore, they claimed no prior notice of the danger.
Jury Verdict
The liability phase lasted four days. On October 18, 2024, the jury found Wal-Mart not liable, and Nsheiwat received no compensation. A defense judgment was then entered in this premises liability lawsuit.
Court Documents:
Available for purchase upon request
Leave A Comment