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.
Discussion 1
At the time of 6:50pm on november 3 2009, Leslie Wade went to walmart with her two kids in a SUV. She parked in the parking lot and went inside to shop for a while, after she finished shopping she went back to her SUV loaded the car with groceries. Once she put the shopping cart away she happened to not watch her step when she was walking back to the car, and stepped into a pot hole hurting her foot. After she hurt her foot she said that she was not looking down and walmart had not maintained the parking lot. Walmart had claimed that the parking was in good shape when it had happened. Walmart had also went on to say that she could have seen the pothole if was looking down, it was a easy hazard to see. After she well walmart decided to continue buisness and fight for themselves in court. Ms Wade thought the best idea was to sue walmart in 2011 to get some compensation for the injuries she had sustained. She continued to say that walmart did not keep up with the parking lot that's why the pothole was there. In 2014 walmart thought they should file a summary motion judgement, Walmart had explained that the pothole was clearly visible for anyone to see. Walmart went through the cameras and showed that she did not want to watch her step so it's obvisiouly her fault for the injury. Walmart had a very strong chance of winning the case because the trial court was working towards helping walmart. When it came down to the trial court they said that the pothole was easy to see and she should have looked where she was going. Wade said in the court that she was not looking because she was looking at shopping carts, people passing by and other cars in the parking lot. Then the court said that walmart did not create those distraction that was on her. Wade ended up losing and wanted to appeal the court to have a second chance, because she thought it was still walmart fault for the pothole she had encountered that day.
Discussion 2
1. In case the disruption leaves an exclusion open, the obvious doctrine is relevant in the present case.
2.Regardless, is there a breach of duty by the defendant of Walmart in the present case.
3. there is a trial court erred in granting brief decision in Walmart's favor.
4. Surely, the plaintiff is liable for the payment caused by the damage from being negligent.
"I do agree with the court's accessible and clear doctrine since the pothole was visible. I felt the court made a good decision since Wade wasn't focused when he was walking. Then she wouldn't have been hurt since Wade wasn't paying attention. I can kind of see it work, but she needed to pay more attention.
Discussion 3 The jury investigated wether Wal-Mart had been at blame causing the plaintiff's injuries for failing addressing an unsafe pothole around its premises. Since Wal-Mart lacks enough notice about the pothole's existence, and the judge determined the company wasn't responsible. Because personal liability law specifies that the owner of the property must have had actual or constructive knowledge about an unsafe condition for them to be found accountable, I believe that the judge drew a correct choice in prioritizing awareness. However, I feel that the court might have granted Wal-Mart's duties to regularly investigate and preserve its property with a higher priority.Wal-Mart could have has procedures implemented for quickly identifying hazards, regardless of whether employees had no knowledge about the potholes. In addition, since the damage caused was immediately linked to a pothole, the judge's conclusion regarding correlation is reasonable. Yet, the judge might have benefitted considering taking into account if Wal-Mart's security measures was sufficient to prevent the risk in the very first place. In general, although the judge correctly interpreted the regulations that require notice, the situation might have been prevented assuming Wal-Mart were to take a more active role about keeping secure surroundings.
Discussion 4
1.Open and Obvious Doctrine:
In the present case, the judicial system used an open and apparent idea properly. The theory states that property owners are exempt from having to fix an issue that someone with common sense might deem harmful, and the pothole was obviously apparent. Wade showed a lack of reasonable caution by failing to notice the pothole and take preventative measures. The legislature exempted Wal-Mart from transparency when needed when risks was evident by choosing actions centered around this premise.
2.Breach of Duty by Wal-Mart:
In this particular case, Wal-Mart didn't break its responsibilities. While the company maintained clean its premises, they were not obligated to warn customers of an obvious hazard. Because Wal-Mart took adequate steps to keep their parking area preserved, they met their duty to take care to Wade. Wade's own negligence in failing to see the small hole was the reason of the accident, not any inadequacies on Wal-Mart's parts.
3.Trial Court's Decision:
While the trial court's final ruling was sound, I think it miscalculated in delivering a brief discovering in favor of Wal-Mart. The court's decision might have have greater weight if the evidence have been reviewed more closely, especially Wade's conduct and the possibility that her might have averted the hole in the road. To avoid any ambiguity regarding the significance of the legislation, the judge had have made certain the ruling was properly documented.
4.Plaintiff's Liability for Negligence:
recognize that the complainant is partly to blame that the damage brought on by her own carelessness. By ignoring the evident hazard, Wade failed to use sufficient caution, and her choices constituted the root cause for the incident. Her personal negligence, and Wal-Mart's failure in maintaining an orderly the environment, is the reason that caused damage. The decision complies with the court's determination than Wal-Mart was freed any liability under the clear and apparent doctrine.
Wade's injuries was unfortunate in general, but the judge's ruling correctly applied to the relevant theories of law. It was also recognized that individuals have to hold themselves responsible for their own well-being, even in circumstances when there are several obvious hazards.
No AI please, let me know if you have any questions. Also for this essay write about the "Hess vs Estate of Klamm" file i sent you, Not about the Wade v Walmart thats in the discussions. Thank you let me know if you have any questions.
Reply Quote