Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Howard (plaintiff) sued Wal-Mart (defendant) for a slip-and-fall, presenting only a "hair's breadth" statistical probability that Wal-Mart's negligence caused the accident, without investigating the specific circumstances or offering any non-statistical evidence; there was no indication Howard was hiding or avoiding evidence that might exonerate Wal-Mart, and after trial began she reduced her damages claim to $25,000. The jury found for Howard, and Wal-Mart appealed, arguing the case should never have gone to the jury given the thinness of the statistical evidence.