Case Explained: Raya Nsheiwat v. Walmart, Inc

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-17 The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Walmart following a negligence trial where the plaintiff alleged she slipped on a plastic hanger in a parking lot cart corral. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) bifurcating the trial into liability and damages phases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), (2) sequestering the plaintiff’s “attorney-in-fact” witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 615, or (3) excluding or limiting the testimony of two expert witnesses. Regarding jurisdiction, the court rejected Walmart’s argument that it lacked authority to review magistrate judge orders because the plaintiff failed to object within the 14-day deadline of Rule 72(a). The court reasoned that because the district judge addressed the merits of these issues in a subsequent order denying a motion for a new trial, the appellate court had jurisdiction to review those decisions. On the merits, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard to all challenged rulings. First, it found the bifurcation was proper to expedite and economize the trial, as many witnesses were only needed for the damages phase. Second, regarding the sequestration of the attorney-in-fact, the court determined that even if the exclusion was erroneous, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice because her legal team had ample time prior to trial to make alternate arrangements or seek permission for the witness’s presence. Third, concerning the expert testimony, the court applied the *Daubert* standard under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. It upheld the exclusion of Russell Kendzior’s testimony because his opinions on causation were common-sense judgments within a lay juror’s knowledge and his opinions on industry standards addressed legal duties rather than specialized facts. The court further found any error regarding Kendzior was harmless because other evidence established Walmart’s breach of duty. Finally, the court affirmed the limitation of Andrew Rentschler’s testimony to the damages phase, ruling that his assumptions about causation were not probative and that his opinion on the mechanics of a fall was common knowledge unnecessary for expert explanation. The practical consequence is that the jury’s verdict in Walmart’s favor stands, and the plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed without relief. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.