A California appeals panel has refused to revive a lawsuit against Walmart Inc. filed by a shopper who claimed she suffered chemical burns from a leaking bleach bottle, ruling that she failed to preserve her objections regarding an allegedly biased juror who owned Walmart stock.

In a decision filed Thursday, the three-judge panel upheld the lower court’s jury verdict in Walmart’s favor, finding that Valeria Segoviano Hernandez did not take the necessary procedural steps during trial to challenge the juror’s participation.

A Shopping Trip Turns Into a Lawsuit

The case stemmed from a 2019 incident in which Hernandez, while shopping at a California Walmart, reached for a Clorox bleach bottle only for the cap to pop off, spilling bleach onto her left arm and hand. She later sued Walmart, alleging negligence and product liability.

During jury selection, one prospective juror—referred to as “Juror K” in court documents—disclosed that he held stock in Walmart and Clorox through mutual and exchange-traded funds. Despite this potential conflict, Juror K stated that he could remain impartial and follow the law, even though he admitted that a verdict could indirectly affect his portfolio’s value.

Hernandez and her legal team used all their peremptory challenges but did not request additional ones, nor did they object when Juror K was seated.

Appeal Undermined by Lack of Objection

On appeal, Hernandez’s attorneys argued that the trial judge should have removed Juror K for cause, citing implied and actual bias due to his investment in Walmart-related funds.

But the appeals panel—comprising Justices Audra M. Mori, Armen Tamzarian, and Judge Craig Van Rooyen—ruled that Hernandez’s failure to object or to request more peremptory challenges nullified her claim.

“Although Hernandez contends that the trial court committed structural error when it failed to remove K, our Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected requests to abandon the forfeiture rule,” the opinion read. “Counsel cannot accept a jury and later appeal when the verdict is unfavorable.”

The court emphasized that Hernandez’s attorneys twice told the court they “accepted the panel as seated,” even after Walmart’s counsel explicitly objected to preserve the record.

Claims of Bias Fall Flat

Hernandez’s team also claimed that Juror K’s stock ownership created implied bias, but the panel said her attorneys failed to argue or prove that mutual fund or ETF holdings met the legal threshold for bias.

Even if the objections had been preserved, the court noted, allowing Juror K to remain was “not manifestly unreasonable” given his demeanor and answers during questioning.

The decision underscores a crucial principle in trial law: failure to timely object waives the issue for appeal.

Legal Teams and Final Notes

Hernandez was represented by Johnathan A. Michaels, Travis R. Eagan, and Allan Kellogg of MLG Attorneys at Law. Walmart was represented by Annie Y. Chuang and Scott A. Chesin of Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Neither party immediately responded to requests for comment on Monday.

The ruling leaves Walmart’s jury victory intact, marking another example of how procedural missteps—even amid questions of bias—can determine the outcome long after the verdict is read.