PITTSBURGH— The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 26 granted Walmart's motion to dismiss certain testimony and evidence in a negligence case after a child was allegedly injured by an employee's cart.
Walmart was sued after Dale and Debra Bennett’s child allegedly was injured when a rocket cart operated by an employee in its Cranberry store hit the child and caused her to fall on Nov. 22, 2015. The retailer filed two motions of limine to dismiss certain testimony. This motion came after the court ruled on its motion for summary judgment March 16.
The first motion for limine concerned evidence and/or testimony related to the child's future medical treatment, future medical expenses, and/or future pain and suffering. The second was connected to evidence and/or testimony in the negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claim. This claim was already dismissed as well as any related to difficulty or other hardships the Bennetts experienced because of the incident.
In a challenge to Walmart’s motion for limine concerning future medical treatment, the Bennetts pointed out the child’s physician said it’s very likely she will develop arthritis in her knee in the future. The Bennett’s didn’t request medical expenses, so there was no need to challenge Walmart in this perspective, the court determined.
As for the motion for limine related to evidence in the NIED claim, the Bennetts said that while the NIED claim was dismissed, it shouldn’t be excluded altogether.
“There may be any number of additional reasons for evidence to be introduced properly, even though the evidence could, in another light, be used to support an NIED claim,” the Bennetts said in their response to Walmart’s motion.
When it comes to Walmart’s motion for summary judgment, the court granted in part and denied in part. The portion granted concerned Count III of the Bennett's lawsuit: NIED on behalf of the alleged trauma Debra Bennett experienced.
Walmart and the Bennetts didn’t agree if Debra being a bystander of the incident caused her to suffer contemporaneous and sensory observance. Walmart argued that since Debra didn’t actually see the incident, she didn’t experience any damage. The district court disagreed and said while she didn’t see it, she experienced enough before and after to suffer damage. It also added, however, that Debra was unable to prove she experienced “permanent disability or injury as a result of the alleged negligence... .”
Concerning the Bennett’s fourth count, Loss of Services/Claim for Medical Expenses, the court agreed with them and denied Walmart’s motion for summary judgment, The family was able to prove the child had to get several surgeries, tests and other procedures as a result of the incident. The Bennetts were also able to establish that one of their losses as a result of the child’s injury was the household chores and services she would do around the house. Considering this, Walmart’s motion was denied.