WALMART STORES EAST LP v. LEVERETTE (2026)

In Walmart Stores E., LP v. Leverette, 371 Ga. App. 543, 901 S.E.2d 607 (2024), this Court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of Bettie Leverette against Wal-mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”). In Walmart Stores E., LP v. Leverette, 321 Ga. 854, 917 S.E.2d 702 (2025) (“Walmart II”), the Supreme Court vacated our decision after concluding that the $1 million award in this case exceeds the limits on nominal damages under Georgia law. However, the Court explained that its decision did not

resolve whether the jury's verdict in this case must ultimately be vacated. For one thing, [Leverette] contends that the jury's verdict should not be disturbed because any error in it was invited by [Walmart]. For another, given the particular combination of jury instructions, an unusual special verdict form, and the overall jury verdict in this case, the appropriate remedy, if any, is not clear.

Id. at 855. The Court ultimately left these decisions “for the courts below to resolve on remand.” Id.

We now vacate Division 1 of our earlier opinion and in place of that Division we adopt as our own the Supreme Court's opinion in Walmart II.¹ As to the remaining issues identified in Walmart II, we remand this case to the trial court to decide them in the first instance.²

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

FOOTNOTES

1.   “Because the Supreme Court neither addressed nor considered Division [2] of our [earlier] opinion ․, and that Division is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's own opinion, Division [2] becomes binding upon the return of the remittitur.” Ashley v. State, 340 Ga. App. 539, 540, 798 S.E.2d 235 (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2.   Walmart's motion to determine issues on remand is denied.

Brown, Chief Judge.

Dillard, P.J., and Padgett, J., concur.