Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright

774 N.E.2d 891 · Indiana Supreme Court · 2002

Facts

Ruth Ann Wright sued Wal-Mart after slipping on a puddle in its garden corral. During trial, a jury instruction allowed considering Wal-Mart's internal manual violations as evidence of its recognized ordinary care, despite Wal-Mart's objection that it improperly altered the objective standard of care. The jury found Wal-Mart liable, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue

Did the trial court err by giving a jury instruction that allowed the jury to consider Wal-Mart's internal manual violations as evidence of the degree of care Wal-Mart recognized as ordinary care, thereby improperly altering the objective standard of care?

Holding

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding the instruction was an improper invitation to deviate from the accepted objective standard of ordinary care and incorrectly stated the law.

Rule

A party's internal rules or policies are admissible as evidence but do not establish the legal standard of care; they cannot set a higher duty than required by law or convert the objective standard of ordinary care into a subjective one based on the party's own recognition. An instruction that incorrectly states the law and invites deviation from the objective standard of ordinary care is reversible error.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-07. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.