Georgia Woman Defends $1.8M Slip-and-Fall Verdict Against QuikTrip

A Georgia woman, Patricia Robinson, is asking the state’s Court of Appeals to uphold a $1.8 million jury award against QuikTrip Corporation following a fall that left her permanently impaired. The case centers on a 2015 incident outside a metro Atlanta QuikTrip convenience store, where Robinson tripped over an uneven section of the sidewalk.

Robinson filed suit in Clayton County State Court, alleging that QuikTrip failed to maintain safe premises for its customers. The company denied liability and argued that any defect in the sidewalk was minor and that Robinson’s own inattention caused her fall. After deliberations, a Clayton County jury awarded Robinson $1.8 million in damages, including compensation for pain and suffering.

The Injury and Its Impact

While the injury involved a broken pinky finger, Robinson’s attorneys emphasized the severity of her functional loss. They argued that the injury effectively deprived Robinson of the use of her dominant hand, significantly altering her daily life.

Attorney Max Thelen stated during oral arguments that QuikTrip’s characterization of the injury as minimal ignored its profound consequences. “The narrative in this case from QuikTrip was, ‘Oh, it’s a broken pinky. No big deal. How on earth could it be worth that much?’” Thelen said. “But that’s not accurate … it’s not just that she had a broken pinky.”

According to court filings, Robinson can no longer perform simple tasks independently, such as holding her grandniece, walking her dog, or carrying objects with her right hand. Her attorneys contended that these intangible but significant losses warranted the jury’s award, despite her medical expenses totaling roughly $7,000.

QuikTrip’s Appeal and Arguments

QuikTrip appealed the verdict, asserting that the award was “inflamed” and grossly disproportionate to Robinson’s actual economic damages. Attorney Lee Kynes argued before the appellate panel that the jury had been improperly influenced to punish the company rather than compensate the plaintiff fairly. “There’s no other explanation for that amount, other than the jury was invited to punish QuikTrip,” Kynes told the court.

The company further contended that Robinson engaged in “gamesmanship” during earlier proceedings. When QuikTrip removed the case to federal court, Robinson successfully moved for a remand to state court, asserting that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 — the jurisdictional threshold for federal diversity cases. QuikTrip maintained that this position should cap any subsequent recovery, as the plaintiff had represented a lower valuation of her claims to secure remand.

Plaintiff’s Response to Jurisdictional Claims

Robinson’s legal team rejected the accusation of manipulation, arguing that her statements about the amount in controversy referred only to her special damages at the time, not to the total value of pain and suffering under Georgia law.

Thelen emphasized that the trial court had correctly applied the jurisdictional test and found no inconsistency or misrepresentation. “The trial court correctly applied the correct test to the actual facts of this case, and correctly found that there was no inconsistent statement … the court knew exactly what was going on and made its decision based off of the defendant failing to meet its burden,” Thelen said.

Robinson’s counsel argued that Georgia law permits juries to consider non-economic damages — such as loss of enjoyment of life and permanent impairment — when calculating compensation. They maintained that the $1.8 million award represented a fair measure of those intangible harms.

Broader Implications for Premises Liability and Damages

The case raises broader questions about how juries in Georgia value pain and suffering in premises liability cases, particularly when economic damages are minimal but quality-of-life losses are substantial. Defense attorneys warn that such verdicts risk encouraging excessive awards detached from medical costs, while plaintiffs’ advocates counter that the law allows juries discretion to assess the full human impact of negligence.

The appellate court’s eventual decision may help clarify the limits of non-economic damages in Georgia and the evidentiary standards for remanding cases between state and federal courts. A ruling in Robinson’s favor could reaffirm the latitude juries have in quantifying intangible losses, while a reversal might impose stricter caps linked to demonstrable expenses.

Case Details

Case Name: QuikTrip Corporation v. Robinson
Court Name: Georgia Court of Appeals
Case Number: A26A0087
Plaintiff Attorney(s): Ashby Thelen Lowry, Schnyder Law Firm, Greene Legal Group
Defense Attorney(s): Webb Daniel Friedlander LLP