The Miami Personal Injury Accident lawyer legal staff answers the question: Can a company overturn a jury’s verdict in Florida just by pointing to a juror’s odd behavior during trial? Not on its own. Florida law requires the defendant to prove the conduct actually caused a miscarriage of justice — a deliberately high bar that Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal just enforced by ordering a $6,786,517.61 jury verdict against Walmart reinstated after a trial judge had thrown it out.
A Pallet Jack, a Five-Day Trial, and a $6.8 Million Verdict
According to the opinion in Rachel Velie v. Walmart Stores East, LP, Case No. 4D2025-0679 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 19, 2026), Velie sued Walmart after she was struck by a pallet jack operated by a Walmart employee while shopping in one of the company’s stores. The trial took place in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County, according to the opinion.
Following a five-day jury trial, the jury found Walmart 100% liable and awarded Velie damages totaling $6,786,517.61, according to the appellate opinion. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every jury verdict turns on the specific facts, evidence, and testimony presented at that trial.
Why Walmart Argued the Jury Was Compromised
The opinion describes a mid-trial episode central to Walmart’s appeal. While a treating physician testified, Velie’s counsel showed the jury a medical demonstrative exhibit depicting alleged brain injuries. One juror said she felt she might get sick and could not continue viewing it. The trial court excused the jury, denied Walmart’s motion for a mistrial, removed that juror, and seated an alternate. The judge then instructed the remaining jurors to disregard what had happened, per the Fourth District’s opinion.
Shortly after, the jury sent the judge a note asking whether Velie’s medical outcome would have differed with immediate treatment. Per the opinion, the question suggested jurors had discussed the evidence before formal deliberations began. Walmart moved for a mistrial a second time; the court denied it, gave a curative instruction, and later interviewed the jurors. Those jurors acknowledged limited discussion of the evidence but denied debating the case’s merits, persuading one another, or reaching conclusions on liability or damages. None reported hearing anything from outside the courtroom, according to the Fourth District’s opinion.
The Trial Court Granted Walmart a New Trial
After the verdict, Walmart moved for a new trial. The trial judge granted it, citing the cumulative effect of the juror’s reaction to the exhibit, the mid-trial discussion, apparent juror confusion about the instructions, and concerns raised during the post-verdict juror interviews, according to the opinion.
Florida’s High Bar: Why an Irregularity Isn’t Enough
Florida law does not let a court set aside a verdict simply because something unusual happened during trial. Under Fla. Stat. § 59.041, a new trial cannot be granted for an error or irregularity unless the record shows it actually affected the substantial rights of the party asking for relief — the “miscarriage of justice” standard the Fourth District’s opinion applied here.
The Fourth District held that Walmart’s record didn’t clear that bar. Per the Fourth District’s per curiam opinion:
- Jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions.
- Nothing in the record showed the excused juror’s reaction or the mid-trial conversation actually swayed the verdict.
- No juror described being persuaded by another juror or exposed to outside information.
- The trial judge wasn’t required to hold a further evidentiary hearing before ruling, because the contemporaneous juror interviews already provided a sufficient record.
The panel reversed the new-trial order and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict.
Not a Unanimous Call — Judge Lott’s Dissent
The ruling was not unanimous. Judge Ciklin concurred specially, but Judge Lott dissented, according to the opinion. Judge Lott reasoned that appellate courts owe substantial deference to a trial judge’s firsthand read of the courtroom, and that deference should have controlled here.
The Verdict Is Reinstated — the Case Isn’t Over
The Fourth District’s opinion closes with a standard notice: it is “not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.” Walmart still has the option to ask the full court to reconsider before the reversal becomes final. As of this writing, the jury’s verdict has been ordered reinstated — it has not been paid, and the case is not closed. Past results, including this verdict, do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any other case.
What the Velie Case Means If You’re Hurt in a Florida Store
A jury verdict is a milestone, not a finish line. A defendant with the resources of a national retailer can move for a new trial, appeal, and seek rehearing — exactly what Walmart may still do here. Each stage runs on its own procedural rules, and Florida’s standard for overturning what a jury already decided is built to be hard to meet.
That’s why building a premises liability case against a large retailer means preparing a trial record that holds up well past the verdict, not just winning over a jury on day one. If you were hurt by unsafe conditions, equipment, or an employee’s conduct inside a Florida store, a premises liability lawyer can walk you through how liability, evidence preservation, and the post-trial process work in a case like this. Similar proof issues come up outside pallet-jack cases — see how Florida courts assessed a store’s knowledge of a hazard in Christie v. Publix.
The Perazzo Law Firm was not involved in and does not represent any party in Velie v. Walmart Stores East, LP. If you were injured in a Florida store or by an employee’s conduct on a retailer’s premises, call The Perazzo Law Firm at 888-PERAZZO (888-737-2996) or request a free case evaluation online to discuss your options.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Rachel Velie been paid the $6.8 million verdict?
Not yet. The Fourth District ordered the verdict reinstated on August 19, 2026, but the opinion is “not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing,” according to the opinion. A reinstated verdict is not the same as a paid verdict, and the case is not closed.
What counts as “juror misconduct” under Florida law?
It generally refers to a juror or jury acting outside the court’s instructions — discussing the case before deliberations begin, considering evidence not admitted at trial, or being exposed to outside information. Not every unusual moment during trial rises to misconduct that justifies overturning a verdict.
Can Walmart still challenge this ruling further?
Possibly. The opinion is not final until any timely-filed motion for rehearing is resolved, according to the Fourth District’s opinion.
What should I do if I’m hurt inside a store in Florida?
Seek medical attention, document what happened, and talk to a premises liability lawyer early. Store surveillance footage and incident reports are often kept for a limited time, so preserving that evidence quickly can matter.
Personal Injury Accident lawyer in Miami Advertising. The Perazzo Law Firm maintains a bona fide office in North Miami Beach, Florida. If we do not recover compensation on your behalf, you owe no attorney’s fee. This article is for general informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results, including the verdict discussed above, do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.