Campolucci, Morris, Collett and Puckett named in late-February suits against Walmart

Law.com Radar indexed a cluster of new lawsuits naming Walmart entities across multiple jurisdictions Feb. 26–27, 2026, and its case cards include Campolucci v. Wal‑mart Stores East, LP (Rhode Island, filed Feb. 27). The Radar indexing lists Campolucci and a truncated entry for Morris, while the story title supplied with the indexing names Collett and Puckett among the late‑February filings.

The available Radar excerpt shows a full card for Campolucci but leaves Morris incomplete; the Morris card in the index is truncated at “(re…” and provides no jurisdiction or complete filing date in the materials reviewed. Collett and Puckett appear only as plaintiff names in the supplied story title with no accompanying caption, court, docket number, complaint text, or counsel listed in the excerpts obtained.

The cluster arrives against a backdrop of high litigation volume for the retailer. Torklaw frames the scale this way: “As the largest non‑governmental employer in the country, Walmart Stores, Inc. is one of the most frequently sued companies in the United States, receiving approximately 5,000 annual personal injury claims annually.” Both Torklaw and a California plaintiff‑attorney blog state that “almost 20 cases are filed daily against Walmart” and the attorney blog repeats, “Almost 20 lawsuits are filed against Wal‑Mart every day.”

Past payouts and verdicts cited by plaintiff‑oriented legal sites underscore what plaintiffs seek when suits proceed. PersonalInjuryLawCal lists a Florida pallet‑jack verdict in which “A Florida shopper was awarded $6,486,717 after a store employee, who was operating a pallet jack, hit her legs, leading to her falling back onto the floor and losing consciousness.” That entry says the woman subsequently required lumbar and cervical fusion surgeries and “years of pain management and chiropractic care.” The same site lists a “$45 million” class‑action settlement over alleged overcharging on weighted groceries and a $10 million settlement tied to money‑transfer fraud; the page metadata is dated “Last Updated: July 16, 2025.”

Common claim themes in the excerpts mirror typical premises‑liability allegations. Victimslawyer summarizes hazards against Wal‑Mart customers as including slips and falls “in spills or water,” “tripping over items left in aisles,” “being injured by falling merchandise that was not stocked appropriately,” “defective shelving that causes cuts,” and “negligent security issues that result in robberies, assaults and other incidents.” That blog also restates California law: “The law in California is that business and property owners owe a duty of care to people who are legally on their premises. They are required to correct dangerous conditions about which they knew or should have known.”

Key details are missing from the late‑February indexing: Morris’s full Radar card is truncated, and Collett and Puckett lack any case captions or court identifiers in the materials provided. The Law.com Radar indexing gives the news peg, but complaint text, causes of action, damages sought, docket numbers and counsel names must be pulled from court dockets to fully assess the allegations and potential exposure for Wal‑mart Stores East, LP or other Walmart corporate entities.

These filings add to a steady stream of litigation tied to the retailer’s U.S. footprint — Torklaw notes “With over four‑thousand stores in the U.S, Walmart sees millions of customers walk through its doors daily” — and will require full dockets and any Walmart response to determine how the Campolucci, Morris, Collett and Puckett matters proceed.