Velie v. Walmart Stores East, LP
After a $6.79 million verdict against Walmart in a pallet-jack injury case, the trial court granted Walmart a new trial based on the cumulative effect of a juror becoming visibly ill viewing a brain-injury demonstrative, mid-trial juror discussions reflected in a jury note, juror confusion about instructions, and concerns from the ensuing juror interview. The Fourth District reversed, holding the record showed no prejudice or miscarriage of justice under section 59.041, and ordered the verdict reinstated. It also affirmed that no additional evidentiary hearing was required before ruling on the new-trial motion.
Key facts
- Plaintiff Velie sued Walmart Stores East, LP for injuries sustained from a pallet-jack incident; a jury returned a verdict of $6.79 million in Velie's favor.
- After trial, Walmart moved for a new trial based on alleged juror irregularities, including a juror becoming visibly ill during a brain-injury demonstrative exhibit, mid-trial juror discussions reflected in a jury note, juror confusion about jury instructions, and concerns raised in a post-trial juror interview.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a useful decision for plaintiffs' counsel defending large verdicts against post-trial attacks premised on juror irregularities: it confirms that even the extraordinarily deferential standard for reviewing orders… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.