## Facts

- Debra J. Holden parked in a handicapped space at a Wal-Mart in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, and stepped into a hole in the parking lot while walking behind her van, falling and experiencing immediate pain, especially in her right knee.
- Holden had preexisting knee and foot problems and held a handicapped permit issued shortly before the incident.
- After the fall, Holden sought emergency treatment and later underwent knee replacement surgery, incurring at least $25,000 in medical expenses.
- Holden sued Wal-Mart for negligent maintenance, inspection, repair, and failure to warn; Wal-Mart denied negligence and asserted defenses including open-and-obvious condition and comparative negligence.
- At trial, the parties presented conflicting evidence on whether the fall caused the need for knee replacement or merely aggravated a preexisting condition that might have required surgery regardless.
- Holden offered evidence of alleged falls in other Wal-Mart parking lots involving pavement defects to show Wal-Mart’s knowledge and notice; the trial court excluded the evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence of alleged falls at other Wal-Mart locations to prove Wal-Mart’s negligence and notice.
2. Whether the jury’s $6,000 damages award (reduced to $3,600 under comparative negligence) was so inadequate that it had to be set aside as the product of passion, prejudice, mistake, or another improper factor.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding other-incident evidence because Holden failed to establish the required foundational showing that those incidents were substantially similar to her fall, and exclusion was permissible under § 27-403 balancing.
- The court held the damages award was supported by the record and was not so inadequate as to indicate passion, prejudice, or mistake, given conflicting evidence on causation and the effect of Holden’s preexisting condition.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of other accidents is admissible only if the proponent shows the other incidents were substantially similar in relevant circumstances; without a sufficient foundation, the evidence may be excluded.
- Even where some similarity exists, other-incident evidence remains subject to exclusion when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403.
- A jury may determine what portion of an injury and related medical expenses was proximately caused by the incident, particularly where preexisting conditions and medical causation are disputed.
- A damages verdict may be set aside as inadequate only when it is so low that it indicates passion, prejudice, mistake, or another improper influence; an award that does not “shock the conscience” will not be disturbed on appeal.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a premises-liability verdict for the plaintiff but upheld the exclusion of other-accident evidence lacking substantial similarity and refused to disturb a modest damages award where the jury could reasonably attribute much of the claimed harm to preexisting conditions rather than the fall.


Holden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 187 (Neb. 2000)