Baron v. Grocery Outlet, Inc.

Shopper awarded $5.78M for a severe injury caused by store negligence

Baron v. Grocery Outlet, Inc.

Slip and Fall

Result: $5.78 Million

BACKGROUND

While shopping at a Grocery Outlet store in San Francisco, Carol Baron tripped over a “U-boat” product stocking cart negligently left in an aisle.  

She fell forward hard onto her outstretched arm, suffering a severe humerus fracture as well as biceps and rotator cuff tears that required complex surgery.  

Two years after the incident, Ms. Baron continued to struggle with severe pain and anxiety. .

CHALLENGE

Ms. Baron and her husband engaged Heinrich Law to sue the operator of the store, J&A Seven Wonders Corp, and the parent company, Grocery Outlet, Inc. claiming that the store was liable for Ms. Baron’s injuries due to negligent placement of the cart. 

The defendants claimed that Ms. Baron caused her own injuries by ignoring an obvious hazard. Grocery Outlet further argued it had no liability because it had no operational control of the store.

We needed to resolve three primary issues to win this case:

1. Was the U-boat stocking cart left in the grocery aisle negligently?  
2. Had Ms. Baron been properly diagnosed to account for the full extent of her injuries?  
3. If there was negligence, who was responsible? 

HOW WE WON

Video evidence documenting Ms. Baron’s fall 

Ms. Baron did not recall how the fall occurred; Mr. Baron had been in another part of the store at the time of the incident. Neither understood exactly what had happened to cause Ms. Baron’s injury. 

After the incident, Ms. Baron and her husband obtained video footage from Grocery Outlet. However, they had not watched it because they continued to be so distraught about the accident. 

Marjorie Heinrich reviewed the footage and saw what happened: the u-boat cart created a tripping hazard that led to Carol Baron falling. 

We believed that the stocking cart had been left in a dangerous position in the grocery aisle and a jury would see it the same way. 

Heinrich Law agreed to represent Carol Baron based on the video evidence and severity of her injuries. 

A failed initial mediation 

Based on our initial claims, the parties attended mediation. The insurance company for J&A made a $300,000 initial offer.  We rejected it. We knew this offer was insufficient compensation for Ms. Baron’s significant injuries and continued severe pain. 

A new diagnosis: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) 

Despite undergoing a surgery which was technically successful, Ms. Baron continued to suffer debilitating pain. Ms. Baron’s orthopedic surgeon suspected Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), a chronic pain condition often triggered by severe orthopedic injury, most common in middle-aged women. Ms. Baron was evaluated, and a diagnosis of CRPS was confirmed.  

Tragically, there is no cure for CRPS and those diagnosed may suffer for their entire lives. 

A substantially higher value case 

Once Ms. Baron received the CRPS diagnosis, our research showed that the value of the case was likely to be in the range of $4 – 7 million. 

Establishing Liability

During the litigation, the owner of the individual Grocery Outlet location, which had ostensibly operated as an independent franchise, declared bankruptcy and closed its store.   

We were deeply concerned that in the event of a successful jury trial a judgement might be uncollectable. To get justice for our seriously injured client, it was imperative that we explore every avenue to fund a future settlement.  

Given the magnitude of the case, we began a case against Grocery Outlet, because the parent company had substantially more resources than a single store operator, and we believed Grocery Outlet should be held accountable for their agent’s negligence. 

We built our case on two legal theories: 

1. Joint venture:   
   • The defendant claimed each store was independently owned.  We conducted multiple depositions of Grocery Outlet executives. These employees ultimately revealed that Grocery Outlet exercised tight control of every aspect of the business, including finances, store layout and operations. 
2. Vicarious liability:  
   • Under this theory, a principal can be held liable for the actions of their agent. Vicarious liability ensures that injured parties can obtain compensation for harm caused by the wrongful acts of agents. 

Grocery Outlet moved to dismiss. However, the judge reviewed our evidence and depositions and denied the motion, ruling the case could proceed to trial. 

The trial 

Heinrich Law partnered with Altair Law to try the case.  The trial’s primary focus was on resolving two issues: 

1. Who was at fault for the incident? 
   • Was the store at fault for placing the cart in a dangerous position? Or was Ms. Baron responsible because she should have seen the cart? Or was fault a combination of the two?  
2. Should the parent company be held responsible? 
   • Did the jury believe that Grocery Outlet and the individual store were unrelated businesses with no joint venture? Or did they believe that Grocery Outlet exerted sufficient control over J&A such that both should be held responsible for Ms. Baron’s harms and losses? 

A FAVORABLE OUTCOME

The jury concluded: 

• The store was 80% at fault for the accident, and Ms. Baron bore 20% comparative fault.  
• Grocery Outlet controlled store operations and was therefore responsible for the actions of the employees in the store. 
• The value of Ms. Baron’s injuries and damages were $6.6 million.  

After adjusting for comparative fault, the parties negotiated a binding settlement of $5.78 million. 

---

If you have been injured from a trip and fall or have suffered any type of serious injury which you believe to have been caused by another, please contact us.  The consultation is free to you.