## Facts

- Regina E. Satterfield visited Giant store no. 77 on July 6, 1987, to buy a few items.
- While walking through the produce section, she slipped on a puddle of water, fell, and landed on her left side.
- Satterfield claimed the fall caused pain and injury to her shoulders, neck, elbow, and fingers.
- A former Giant employee testified that when produce stands were cleaned, drains would sometimes back up and water would collect in puddles on the floor, suggesting a recurring condition.
- Satterfield sued Giant for negligence and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- Before trial, the court dismissed the punitive-damages claim.
- A jury found Giant negligent and awarded $2,500 in past medical expenses and $40,000 in non-economic compensatory damages.
- The trial court denied Giant’s motions for a new trial or remittitur.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by declining to give a limiting instruction after plaintiff’s counsel used a per diem argument for pain-and-suffering damages in closing.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by permitting testimony concerning treatment by Dr. Kanner when he was disclosed in interrogatory answers one week before trial.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by permitting testimony from lay witness Judy Glass when she was disclosed one week before trial.
4. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to submit punitive damages to the jury.

## Decision

- The court held that per diem arguments for non-economic damages are permissible in Maryland, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion merely by allowing the argument without the requested limiting instruction.
- The court vacated the compensatory judgment and remanded for a new trial because the trial court’s handling of late-disclosed witnesses (including Dr. Kanner and Judy Glass) resulted in unfair surprise and prejudice.
- The court affirmed the pretrial dismissal of the punitive-damages claim, holding the evidence supported negligence at most and did not meet Maryland’s heightened standard for punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Per diem arguments for pain-and-suffering damages may be used in closing argument in Maryland, subject to the trial court’s control over argument and instructions to prevent misleading or inflammatory presentations.
- Discovery rules requiring timely disclosure of witnesses are intended to prevent surprise and permit meaningful trial preparation; admitting testimony from late-disclosed witnesses can be reversible error when it causes unfair prejudice.
- In Maryland premises-liability negligence cases, punitive damages require a heightened showing beyond ordinary negligence (such as actual malice or reckless disregard); evidence of a recurring hazard and failure to correct it, without more, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because late disclosure of key witnesses unfairly prejudiced the defense, while reaffirming that per diem closing arguments are allowed and that the evidence did not justify submitting punitive damages to the jury under Maryland law.


Giant Food, Inc. v. Satterfield, 603 A.2d 877 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992)