
    WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. Thelma A. HOWELL.
    No. 97-CA-00770-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    Oct. 8, 1998.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1999.
    
      Edley H. Jones, III, Jackson, for Appellant.
    James M. Mars, II, Philadelphia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before PRATHER, C.J., and BANKS and WALLER, JJ.
   MEMORANDUM OPINION

WALLER, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. Thelma Howell sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for injuries she sustained while shopping at the Wal-Mart Superstore in Philadelphia, Mississippi. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Howell in the amount of $25,-000.00. Wal-Mart appealed and alleges the following assignments of error:

I. WAL-MART WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
II. HOWELL FAILED TO SATISFY HER BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO DAMAGES.
III. THE JURY VERDICT WAS THE PRODUCT OF BIAS, PREJUDICE, AND IMPROPER PASSION.

¶ 2. A jury question was presented where Brent Garrett, a customer in Wal-Mart at the time Howell slipped, testified as to seeing a liquid on the floor and thereafter searching briefly for a Wal-Mart employee prior to Howell’s slipping on the light-colored liquid detergent that was on the floor. There was testimony that Wal-Mart had 180 employees on the floor at the time of the fall, and a store policy that required each employee to check aisles for safety hazards at least five times over a shift. However, there was no testimony that any Wal-Mart employee had conducted a safety sweep of the aisle where Howell fell. It was further acknowledged by a manager that the location where Howell fell was more likely to have a spill than other departments of the store. Although this may be viewed as a somewhat close case, all conflicts in the evidence will be resolved in the plaintiffs favor on appeal where there has been a favorable jury ver-diet. Southwest Mississippi Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Lawrence, 684 So.2d 1257, 1269 (Miss.1996).

¶ 3. With respect to damages, Howell with no history of prior knee problems, incurred $5,089 in medical bills from treatment that included arthroscopic knee surgery. We cannot say on the basis of the record that the jury verdict of $25,000 was the result of prejudice, bias, fraud or is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Sessums v. Northtown Limousines, Inc. 664 So.2d 164, 170 (Miss.1995).

¶ 4. AFFIRMED.

PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, P.JJ., and BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., SMITH and MILLS, JJ., concur.

MeRAE, J., concurs in result only.  