Federal Judiciary

Jury verdict in E-Z Mart case

By Michael Smith

Blade v. EZ Mart, 2:06cv498 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2008)
Holding: jury verdict
In the midst of all the patent cases getting tried this month, especially in Marshall, not much attention gets paid to the other cases.  I ran into some court staff at lunch and learned that the jury in Judge Everingham's case in Blade v. EZ Mart, 2:06cv498, a personal injury case arising out of the plaintiff's slip and fall in the defendants' Longview store parking lot, returned a verdict this morning.  The jury found both the plaintiff and E-Z Mart negligent, and split responsibility 49-51, with E-Z Mart on the losing side by one percent (Texas has a 51% bar on plaintiff's negligence). 
On damages, the jury declined to award the plaintiff or his wife any damages for noneconomic damages, i.e. physical pain and mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of household services, or loss of consortium.  In fact the only damages the jury awarded was what the defendant had stipulated to - $118,774.16 for past medical expenses. 
What the jury didn't know was that under Texas law the damages it awarded are reduced by the percentage of negligence assessed against the plaintiff, so the award will be cut to about $60,000 in the judgment.  What the jury also didn't know was what the liens against any recovery are, either hospital or health insurance.  It's possible - even highly likely given the level of contrib - that the amounts the jury awarded will not even cover the  insurance liens.
Compare that to the Saffran v. Boston Scientific case two days earlier, also before a Marshall jury, where the jury  awarded the number the plaintiff's expert  proposed  as a reasonable royalty.  Different case, different facts.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on February 13, 2008 (boomark / email).