You know... I bet Petsmart would admit to liability if the 'damages' didn't always end up so bloated in these things. She "hurt" her ankle in a fall. How bad did she really 'hurt' it? - Was she really functionally disabled by the experience? - or did she feel a bit sore and limp for a few days? Is she seeking thousands for pain and suffering? - Or is she seeking the deductible for her insurance (which she should have anyway) so she could go to the doctor and get the ankle wrapped? I tripped on a curb last week. My knee still hurts. But it was just a bump in the road of life
It would depend how old she is. My aunt broke her ankle and took a few months to recover to full functionality. My mother broke her foot in a freak biking accident and took over 6 months to recover. So it would depend on how bad the injury is and her age and physical health.
All that said I agree that these liability suits are more about punishment rather than compensation. Therefore the awards tend to be grossly disproportionate to the actual offense.
I think if she broke her ankle, and had any real disability from it, they would have said so in the article. The fact that she was described as just having 'hurt' it sounded alarms with me.