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 FinalPaper 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.
Discussion 1 On november 3 2009 at 6:50 pm Ms Leslie Wade arrived to walmart in her SUV and she parked in a parking lot in savoy illinois and she entered the store with her 2 kids, they were aged 8 and 9 at the time. She went shopping till 7:33 pm after she went shopping she returned to her SUV and she unloaded groceries and she trotted back to her vehicle after returning the shopping cart. While she was trotting she ended up stepping into a pothole and injured her foot. She did not see the pothole when she was walking back and she even admitted that she was not looking down. Walmart stated that they maintained the parking lot where the incident has occured. Walmart had also said the pothole was a visible hazard in the parking lot, after the fall had happened, walmart had continued buisness and they defended themselves in court. After the lawsuit was filed, Ms Wade decided to file a negligence lawsuit against walmart in november 2011 and wanted compensation for the injuries she had got. She was saying that the parking lot was not maintained and it was still hazardous. she had stated that the pothole was not obvious to see. Walmart took action and decided to file a motion for summary judgement in september 2014. Walmart also said that the pothole was a obvious hazard. Walmart had video evidnence that she was able to see the pothole but decided to not pay attention. Before the case was going to get appealed, the trial court went in the favor of walmart and that meant they decided the case without going to do the full trial. The trial court finally decided that the pothole was easily visible and it could have been avoided if she payed attention to where she was walking. In Wade deposition she admitted if she looked down she would have noticed the pothole. Wade had also said she got distracted by looking at other cars, shopping carts or people walking by. The court stated theyre was no distractions created by walmart. Walmart did not need to owe Wade a duty to warn or protect against the pothole. Under illinois liability law property owners do not have to warn customers about potholes that they could clearly see. The trial ended up siding with walmart and they dismissed Wade lawsuit and it did not go to the full trial. Wade ended up appealing the decision
Discussion 2
The legal issues the court considered was they stated
1. Was the open and obvious doctortine apply because the pothole was in a spot that was open and obvious
2. Did the distraction exemption apply to the open and obvious doctorine because of the undisputed facts on this case.
3. Without a doubt was the plantiff liable for the reimbursement for the damages caused by defendant not paying attention.
Discussion 3
In my opinion, the court issued a brief decision in Carelessness. Wade had a point with regards to this because the property in question had been owned by Walmart so there could have been a few warning signs or the entire location must have been well-guaranteed in order to provide an easy entry in that area. That is why Wade has a point to argue under the law of negligence in this case. The company should have been cautious of their customers' behavior, however instead disregarded the danger in question.
The court utilized the "open and obvious" approach in the Wade v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. decision since the pothole was located in a place that anyone with common sense walking through a parking lot could easily see and understand. The court ruled that Wal-Mart shouldn't be held responsible because the hazard was obvious and could have been avoided. In connection to the open and obvious doctrine's distraction exemption, the court determined that Wade's temporary interruption did not meet the legal requirements to overturn the hazard's open and obvious nature. The court determined that Wade's brief negligence was not able to back up an accusation of carelessness considering the details of this case were obvious. At some point the court determined that Wade, the person who brought the lawsuit, could not be liable for any reimbursement for damages which results in the defendant's lack of attention due to the distraction issue was not important enough to have affected the outcome of the case. The decision guaranteed that fault only occurs in situations where a hazard isn't easily visible or when it is a distraction does enough to explain someone not being able to notice it.
Discussion 4
In my opinion, I believe the court in Wade v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. properly understood and implemented the law. All three legal problems were successfully taken into consideration in the decision, which ruled that the plaintiff was ultimately in control of her own safety, the pothole was open and obvious, and the reason for distraction exception did not apply. In complying with long-standing Illinois law, the court offered a straightforward decision that put an extreme value on personal responsibility where the danger is obvious and avoidable. This outcome supports consistency and fairness in matters concerning premises responsibility.
Issue 1 Open and obvious doctorine
In Wade v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court correctly followed the open and obvious doctrine. The court determined that a person using reasonable caution would have noticed the pothole Wade tripped over because it was clearly visible and in an area where customers regularly walk. A property owner can frequently be exempt from responsibility under Illinois law for injuries brought on by visible and open hazards. The court reached the conclusion that Wal-Mart was not obligated to alert Wade to a risk that was obvious. I think this decision was reasonable because it would take the blame away from the individual's obligation to be aware of their surroundings if Wal-Mart were held accountable for a hazard that was clearly visible.
Issue 2 Distraction and exemption to open and obvious doctorine
In addition, the court made the correct decision in finding that the distraction exception wasn't relevant in the present case. Wade claimed that she failed to pay attention to the pothole as she was occupied with a wheeling cart. The court stated however, that her distraction was small and self-induced instead of a major or unexpected one brought on by Wal-Mart. To make it possible for Illinois courts to ignore the open and obvious concept, the distraction needs to be unexpected and caused by the defendant. Wade's effort to make use of the distraction exception was properly refused by the court because there had been no such evidence. Because it maintains compliance with legal requirements while making sure the exemption isn't misused to avoid responsibility, I support this decision.
Issue 3 Plantiff's responsibility for damages
Finally, I agree with the court's decision that the plaintiff's own lack of attention prevented her from collecting damages. The court found there was no legal basis to hold Wal-Mart responsible under the conditions of the case, stating that Wade was to blame for navigating a hazard that was clearly visible. This supports the idea that people need to remain cautious of the environment, especially when there are obvious or misleading hazards. This conclusion, in my opinion, supports fairness and reasonable expectations under the law by making it evident that property owners do not serve as insurers of safety in which hazards are seen. NO AI Please lmk if you have any questions