INSTRUCTIONS
Format
- for the assignment, and documents and a video describing the procedural nature of court cases and how to analyze them. It also contains a link to the Academic Honesty Quiz module.
The Final Writing Assignment requires you to write a paper that mirrors all four of the Discussion Board Assignments; you should detail (1) the facts of the case in detail, (2) the legal issue(s) at stake, (3) the court's analysis of each issue in light of the facts and the law, and (4) your opinion of whether the court ruled correctly on each issue and why. Each section should be written in paragraph form, except for the legal issues section, which can be written as a list or bullet points.
If you refer to any sources in writing your paper, including the textbook for the course or online material, you must cite to them and put in quotation marks anything that you quote. I do not care what format you put your citation in (MLA, APA, Bluebook, etc.) as long as it includes enough information to tell what the source is and, if it came from a website, the web address. (See the Academic Honesty quiz and related material or contact GSU's Writing Center if you are not sure how to do this.) Do not discuss your case or this assignment with anyone (other than me or the Writing Center) until after the due date -- to do so constitutes cheating and may result in a failing grade in the course.
The Academic Honesty quiz is also due on May 5. To receive any credit for the Final Writing Assignment, you must complete the Academic Honesty quiz with a minimum grade of at least 15 out of 20 points. If you do not complete the Academic Honesty quiz you will not get any points for the Final Paper no matter how good it is. The Academic Honesty quiz can be taken at any time before May 5 and is in the first module in Course Content in Blackboard. There is a link to this quiz in the Week 14 module as well.
If you have any questions or comments, email me at [email protected]. General questions not specifically related to your case or paper can be posted in the Course Questions discussion board. I would also be happy to schedule a meeting by phone or Zoom to discuss your questions. Good luck!
discussion post 1:
In November of 2009, Leslie Wade drove to Walmart located in Savoy, Illinois in her SUV and arrived at 6:50P.M.M with her two children who were of the ages of 8 and 9 years old. Wade parked her SUV and walked into the store's entrance with her two children through the parking lot. On that day Wade was wearing leather boots with a one-inch heel, stating that she had no issue walking in them or seeing the parking lot ahead of her that had been lit up with artificial lights. At exactly 7:33 P.M., Wade exited the store with her two children describing her mood as being silly and laughing, Wade began to “trot” to the SUV after putting the cart back when her foot fell into a pothole, she ended up falling on her left knee onto the asphalt and was thankfully able to catch herself with her left hand. However, as a result of the fall, she had broken her foot. She explained that she didn’t see the pothole, and stated once again, that she had no issues walking in the shoes she was wearing as well as not having an issue seeing the asphalt parking lot in front of her. The video footage that was asked for from Walmart, unfortunately, did not catch the fall due to her being behind the SUV and had blocked her from the camera's view. In November of 2011, Wade sued Walmart, looking for compensation for her fall and injuries. However, Walmart came back with a motion filed stating they did not owe Wade compensation as the pothole was an open obvious hazard. They also stated there could have been a distraction by not seeing the pothole. A few years later in November of 2014 following a hearing, the trial court had granted the judgment in favor of Walmarts argument.
discussion post 2:
The legal issues that the court considered in the case of "Wade vs. Walmart Stores" are:
1. Is the Open and Obvious Doctrine's Distraction Exception useful in the current situation?
2. Was Walmart, the defendant in this case, in breach of its duties?
3. Was it wrong for the trial court to grant Walmart summary judgment?
4. Is the plaintiff responsible for paying for the damages caused by the defendant's carelessness?
In my opinion, the court delivered a summary result in carelessness. Wade had a point in this case because the land was owned by Walmart and there should have been some warning signs or the whole area should be well-guaranteed so as not to provide a smooth entrance in that area. Therefore, Wade has a point to prove under the law of carelessness in this case. The company ignored this risk, and they should have been aware of their customers' behavior.
discussion post 3:
It is my opinion that the court was correct in holding in Wade v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. that the open and obvious doctrine was applicable, as the pothole was exposed and Wade should have noticed it. The open and obvious doctrine protects property owners from liability for hazards that are open to a reasonable person. Since the pothole was in a non-hidden and non-obstructed location, Wal-Mart owed no duty to warn Wade of its existence. The court also considered the distraction exception to the doctrine but determined that there was insufficient evidence that Wade was distracted in such a way as would have kept her from observing the hazard. While distractions sometimes will present an exception, there was no concrete evidence in favor of that argument here. Additionally, individuals must be aware of their surroundings and take reasonable care to avoid hazards. Since the pothole was exposed and Wade was not being careful, the court was correct in holding that she was responsible for her own injuries. The court was correct in holding that summary judgment was proper in Wal-Mart’s favor because Wade did not meet the burden of proof required to show negligence on the part of the store. In Wade v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court initially addressed the open and obvious doctrine, finding the pothole was visible and should have been apparent to the plaintiff. Since the hazard was open and obvious, Wal-Mart had no duty to warn Wade of the hazard, and it was her responsibility to avoid the hazard. Second, the court addressed whether the distraction exception to the doctrine applied. Wade claimed she was distracted, but the court found there was no evidence presented that was sufficient to prove this allegation. Without meritorious evidence of a distraction, the court found the open and obvious doctrine applied, and the distraction exception did not alter the outcome. Finally, the court ruled on whether the plaintiff was responsible for the repayment of damages for not watching where she was walking. The court said everyone has a responsibility to watch where they are walking. Since the pothole was visible and Wade was not being attentive, the court found she was responsible for her own injuries, and Wal-Mart was not responsible.
discussion post 4:
In my opinion, the circuit court analyzed and applied the law correctly to each issue in the case of Wade v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. First, with regard to the Distraction Exception to the Open and Obvious Doctrine, I agree with the circuit court that this exception should apply here. Importantly, the pallet that caused Wade to fall was not necessarily undiscovered, but the circuit court recognized that customers can be reasonably distracted inside a busy store. The distraction exception contemplates that an individual may not have noticed an open and obvious hazard because this individual was focused on something else, whether it was navigating around other shoppers or ongoing displays inside the store. Importantly, this is a factual issue, and it's my belief that the circuit court correctly stated that it should be determined by a jury, rather than being dismissed by the trial judge in summary judgment.
Issue 1: Distraction Exception to the Open and Obvious Doctrine:
The court adequately considered the distraction exception, which allows recovery even if a hazard is open and obvious if the injured party is distracted in a way from any source that a reasonable person would be. Wade claimed she was distracted on her way into the store and did not see the pallet. The court admirably noted that distractions are relevant and ruled that it was a factual issue for a jury to decide, which is correct to be left to a jury and good law because it allows for context in evaluating fault.
Issue 2: Walmart’s Duty:
The court reasonably found that Walmart had a duty to provide a safe environment for patrons. Even if the pallet were obvious, Walmart nevertheless had a duty to evaluate safety and foreseeable distractions in a busy retail setting. This is consistent with general premises liability doctrine.
Issue 3: Summary Judgment:
The trial court’s ruling of summary judgment in favor of Walmart was properly reversed. The appellate court found there were factual disputes about whether Walmart was distracted and if Walmart breached its duty. This makes summary judgment improper, as those factual disputes were to be resolved by a jury.
Issue 4: Plaintiff’s Responsibility:
The court correctly concluded that there may be some liability on the part of Wade, but comparative negligence is an issue for the jury and not simply about Wade failing to realize the pallet was in her lane but whether the negligence of Walmart contributed in any way to the injury. By refusing to assign full liability to the plaintiff, the court adhered to the framework of comparative negligence.No Ai detected at all lmk if you have any qyestions.