Case Background
The case of Henrietta Castrellon v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. began with an accident at a Los Angeles Home Depot store. Castrellon, a lawful customer, claimed she suffered severe injuries because of unsafe conditions in the store. On August 12, 2020, she filed her complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
Castrellon alleged that the company failed to keep its property in a reasonably safe condition for shoppers. She stated that she encountered a hazardous situation while walking inside the store, which caused her to fall and sustain injuries. According to her complaint, Home Depot either knew about the unsafe condition or should have known through proper inspection yet took no steps to fix it or to warn her.
Her suit set the stage for a Courtroom battle about whether one of the nation’s largest retailers had met its duty of care to customers or whether its practices fell short.
Cause
Castrellon’s complaint rested on a theory of negligence through premises liability. She argued that Home Depot breached its duty to maintain safe aisles, floors, and customer walkways. Because of this breach, she was injured while inside the store.
Her lawyers stressed that she was not doing anything unusual at the time she was simply walking through the store as any paying customer would. The accident, they said, was the direct result of the company’s failure to act responsibly.
Injury
The fall left Castrellon with serious physical injuries that required medical attention. She described her injuries as painful and debilitating. Medical providers prescribed treatment, and she incurred expenses for hospital visits, therapy, and related care.
Her attorneys emphasized not only the immediate pain but also the lasting impact. They said the accident limited her ability to work, perform routine activities, and enjoy her life as she had before. Her complaint made clear that she believed these were not temporary inconveniences, but ongoing struggles tied to the incident.
Damages Sought
Castrellon sought compensation for both economic and non-economic damages. Her complaint asked for:
· Medical expenses for treatment already incurred and expected in the future.
· Lost earnings for wages missed during recovery, along with reduced future earning capacity.
· Pain and suffering to reflect the physical pain, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life caused by the accident.
· Litigation costs and any other relief the Court found proper.
Her attorneys stressed that the case was not only about covering bills but also about restoring dignity after an injury that she believed never should have happened.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Henrietta Castrellon
· Counsel for the Plaintiff: Jason Adams Frost | Ben-Cohen Pejman Amir
· Experts for the Plaintiff: Brad Avrit | Eris Barillas | Joellen Gill | Ryan Mattie | Andrew Morris | Brian King
Defendant: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
· Counsel for the Defendant: Tracy L. Hughes | Thanh K. Nguyen | Sharifi Jubin
· Experts for the Defendant: Gavin Huntley-Fenner | Mark J. Spoonamore | Ned Wolfe
Claims
Castrellon’s attorneys argued that Home Depot had failed in its duty of care. They pointed to gaps in inspection routines and safety measures. They said the store should have known about the hazardous condition that caused the accident and corrected it before customers got hurt.
They presented Castrellon as an ordinary customer who had trusted the store to be safe. They described her fall as entirely preventable had Home Depot followed proper procedures.
The complaint also set out the significant impact on her daily life. The lawyers explained how the injuries forced her to change the way she lived, prevented her from enjoying activities she once valued, and placed a heavy emotional and physical burden on her.
Defense
Home Depot denied every allegation in its formal answer. The company’s attorneys argued that it was not negligent, and even if a hazard existed, Castrellon bore responsibility for her own injuries.
The defense claimed she failed to use ordinary care for her safety and that the condition she blamed was either obvious or insignificant. They also argued that Home Depot did not have notice of any hazard in time to correct it.
In addition, the defense raised arguments about damages. They suggested Castrellon had not mitigated her injuries, meaning she did not follow through with reasonable care to lessen their severity. They argued some of her medical problems stemmed from pre-existing conditions or other unrelated causes.
Jury Verdict
After days of testimony and arguments, the case went to the jury. On September 15, 2025, the panel returned a special verdict that spelled out their findings step by step.
The jury then turned to damages. They awarded Castrellon:
Past medical expenses: $653,160.98
Future medical expenses: 973,442
Past non- economic loss: $1,750,000
Future non-economic loss: $ 3,250,000
This brought the total damages to $6,626,602.98
The jury also found that Henrietta Castrellon was negligent and that her negligence was a substantial factor in causing her harm.
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
