$724K Verdict For Woman Who Fell At BurlCo Rite Aid Affirmed On Appeal

WILLINGBORO, NJ — A state appeals court sustained a judgment Monday against Rite Aid of more than $700,000 for a customer's injury-inducing fall in a Burlington County store — even though the award was higher than expected.

In February 2017, Lavant Jones walked into Rite Aid in Willingboro. She slipped on a tablecloth and brochure that blew off a table the store set up to promote flu vaccinations, according to court documents. Jones claimed she suffered permanent injuries that required multiple surgeries and left her homebound.

Following a virtual trial in January 2022, a jury in the state Superior Court of Burlington County awarded $717,000 to the plaintiff — $700,000 in damages and a $17,000 medical lien. The judge called the verdict a "surprise ... in excess of what would have been expected" but didn't believe the decision shocked the conscience enough to warrant a new trial.

The Superior Court judge, however, offered a settlement conference to discuss remittitur — a ruling by a judge to lower the amount of damages a jury grants in a civil case. But remittitur requires consent from both parties, and the April 2022 conference failed to resolve the matter. So the judge entered an award for Jones of $724,872.82 — an increase over the prior ruling because of prejudgment interest.

The Rite Aid corporation appealed, claiming the "excessive" award merited a new trial. Rite Aid also said the virtual-trial format — in place because of COVID-19 orders — resulted in an unfair trial, according to court documents. (Neither party objected to virtual proceedings before the trial.)

Both appeals-court judges denied Rite Aid's appeal for a new trial, saying the retailer's claims of prejudice lacked sufficient merit. The 19-page court opinion contends that the virtual trial was fair.

"The judge maintained the formality of the proceedings, followed all necessary protocols, adeptly handled and considered objections made by defense (Rite Aid's) counsel, and properly considered all the evidence," the 19-page opinion states.

According to court documents, Jones walked into the store without seeing the cloth that fell on the ground — a fact confirmed through Rite Aid's surveillance footage. She immediately felt pain in her shoulder and lower back, receiving X-rays at the hospital that day, the court opinion says.

Jones testified that she sustained "real sharp pain" in her legs, which numbed so much at night that she didn't want to move. She also claimed to suffer numbness in her fingers and intense shoulder pain that left her barely able to lift her arm upward.

Her ongoing neck and lower-back pain forced Jones to rely on her adult children to do basic tasks like shopping and cooking, according to court documents. Dr. Lawrence Barr — Jones's orthopedist — testified that the fall caused a contusion, left lumbar radiculopathy, and right shoulder impingement syndrome that resulted in right-shoulder surgery.

A surgery complication gave Jones a wound infection, which resulted in a four-day hospital stay, Barr said. Jones had a prior history of chronic neck and low-back pain and issues with her right shoulder. But Barr concluded that the fall aggravated the plaintiff's back pain and resulted in the carpal tunnel and right-shoulder surgeries. Jones's injuries were permanent, increased her risk of future injuries and left her unlikely to live pain-free again, he said.

Jones's attorney pointed out that Jones was 53 during the incident, so her injuries would likely leave her with decades of pain and susceptibility to further complications.

One cashier testified that Rite Aid's corporate office directed store management to set up the self-service display table by the entrance. The store used a bottle of hand sanitizer to stop items from falling, which only worked for a "minute" because of heavy winds and the door constantly opening, the employee said.

Dr. Ronald Gerson — an orthopedist testifying for Rite Aid — opined that Jones's pain likely stemmed from injuries sustained in a 2005 car accident. But the four-day trial concluded with a jury ruling in Jones's favor.

"The amount of damages did not shock the court's conscience despite the trial judge's surprise," the appellate ruling states. "Moreover, the jury considered the evidence and testimony presented during the trial, which formed the basis for the award."