Description The case for your Final Writing Assignment is attached to this email. It is due on May 5, is worth 20% of your final grade in this course, and should be submitted through the Week 14 module in Course Content in Blackboard. The Week 14 module contains instructions for the Final Writing Assignment, the place to submit the assignment, a rubric for the assignment, a Word document with the sample 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 The court case of Wade v. Walmart was filed on September 24, 2015, after the plaintiff Leslie Wade sued Walmart for the injuries she had on Walmart property. Wade explained that on November 3rd, 2009, at around 6:50 P.M., she got to Walmart using her SUV to get to the Savoy, Illinois location. She then exited her car with her two young children (ages 8 and 9). Wade and her children were able to get in and out of the Walmart location after getting what they needed and began walking back to the SUV as they got closer to the vehicle at 7:33 P.M>, she got her left foot caught in a pothole and led her to hit her left knee on the pavement. As she was falling she was able to catch herself on her left hand hoping that would be the end of it, however, unfortunately resulted in a broken foot injury. Wade described herself in that moment as being silly and laughing while also reporting she had no difficulties seeing the parking lot nor did Wade have an issue walking in the shoes she was wearing at the time of the incident which was, leather boots with a one-inch heel. Unfortunately, video footage from Walmart cameras was unable to capture this fall due to it happening behind the SUV which blocked that section of the asphalt. Moving forward, after this statement was given, in 2011, Wade sued Walmart in the hope of getting compensation for the injuries from her fall. Later in September of 2014, Walmart filed a motion as a form of defense stating they didn’t owe Wade anything because the hole in the parking lot was “an open and obvious hazard”, as well as the argument of possible distractions. In November 2014 after hearing both the plaintiff and Walmarts argument the trial court granted the case in Walmart's favor. Discussion 2 1. Is the pothole open and obvious hazard? The court ruled in Walmart favour because the pothole seemed to be obvious for anyone looking to see it. 2. When wade walking back to her car was it her fault for being distracted and not seeing the pothole? This made the court question if it was wade fault for not paying attention and stepping in the pothole, when she could have easily avoided it. 3. Were the injuries wade suffered a result of Walmart fault? The problem for the court is, if they believe it’s Walmarts fault that there was a pothole that wade did not see. They do not know who to blame yet. 4. Will the distraction exemption work for the open and obvious rule. Since wade has pointed out she was distracted by people walking or cars in the parking lot, could this mean Walmart had nothing to do with this situation and wade should have payed attention to where she was going. Discussion 3 In my opinion I think the court ruled for Walmart because they were concluding the pothole was an open and obvious hazard that Wade should have easily seen and avoided. The court ruled that property owners aren't liable for injury caused by dangers that would be obvious to a reasonable person. Since the pothole was obvious to anyone with eyes open, Walmart was not obligated to provide additional warnings. The duty and data breach: First, the court considered whether Wal-Mart had a legal duty to protect Wade from the pothole and if the contract was broken. Wal-Mart had a responsibility to keep its property fairly secure and to notify customers to any hidden dangers because it is a business that welcomes the public into its property. The pothole in question was determined by the court to be clear and visible rather than a hidden or subtle hazard. The court highlighted that owners are not liable for the harm brought on by circumstances that are obvious and preventable with common sense. As a result, the court determined that Wal-Mart did not break its contract since, in accordance with Louisiana law, the pothole was not unreasonable. Unreasonably dangerous condition: The pothole's position as a "unreasonably dangerous" condition was another variable that the court took under consideration. The court determined the pothole did not meet the criteria by using the four-factor test: utility of the condition, likelihood of injury, cost of avoidance, and severity of harm. Wade sustained a serious injury, but the condition was neither hidden nor likely to hurt someone utilizing reasonable caution. In addition, it would be unreasonable to expect owners of commercial real estate to fix every small surface fault in large parking lots right now. The pothole was considered by the court to be an average imperfection that wasn't presenting an excessive danger. Open and Obvious doctorine: The court maintained that comparative fault is protected by the "open and obvious" doctrine. Wade stated that with the pothole being clearly obvious, she did not look down while walking. The court ruled that the hole should be easily noticed and avoided by any reasonable person using normal caution. Wade thereby received entire blame by the court, which came to its decision that her injury had been caused only by her own lack of attention. Discussion 4 In my view, the court in Wade v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. accurately interpreted and applied the relevant legal principles. The decision thoughtfully addressed all three central legal issues: it determined that the plaintiff bore responsibility for her own safety, the pothole was an open and obvious hazard, and the distraction exception did not apply. By adhering to established Illinois law, the court delivered a clear and practical ruling that emphasized personal responsibility in cases involving avoidable, visible dangers. This outcome promotes fairness and consistency in premises liability matters. Issue 1: Open and Obvious Doctrine In Wade v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court correctly applied the open and obvious doctrine. It found that an observant person would have noticed the pothole over which Wade tripped, as it was clearly visible and located in a parking lot where people had walked constantly on a daily basis. This had also seemed to be one of the first times Walmart was tried under the law about this issue. Under Illinois law, property owners are often not liable for injuries caused by hazards that are open and obvious. The court concluded that Wal-Mart had no duty to warn Wade of a danger she reasonably should have perceived. I believe this ruling is sound, as holding Wal-Mart liable in such circumstances would diminish the individual's responsibility to remain aware of their environment. Issue 2: Distraction and Exception to the Open and Obvious Doctrine The court also made the correct determination in concluding that the distraction exception did not apply in this case. Wade argued that she was distracted by maneuvering a wheeled cart and therefore did not notice the pothole. However, the court found that her distraction was minor and not reliant on Wal-Mart but instead herself for not paying attention to the ground in front of her, rather than significant or unexpected, and not caused by any action on Wal-Mart’s part. Under Illinois law, for the distraction exception to override the open and obvious doctrine, the distraction must be both unforeseeable and caused by the defendant. Wade’s attempt to invoke this exception was rightly rejected by the court, as her distraction did not meet the necessary legal standard. For Illinois courts to set aside the open and obvious doctrine, the distraction must be both unforeseen and caused by the defendant. Wade’s attempt to rely on the distraction exception was rightly rejected by the court, as there was no evidence to support such a claim. This decision upholds the legal standard while ensuring that the exception is not misapplied as a means to shift responsibility away from individuals for hazards they should reasonably avoid. In my opinion, knowing what we know about the case I felt that that final verdict was made reasonably as Wade had stated on multiple occasions that not only was she distracted and not paying attention but also had been skipping which in and of itself could be a hazard on its own especially when not paying attention. Although the parking lot wasn’t perfectly leveled by lay it states that business owners are not responsible for the incidents that happen outside of the premises and unfortunately even on flat ground when skipping or not walking with caution a potential injury can occur within seconds, with the blame being on the person doing the action. With further examination of the case, Walmart had went back and looked at the camera footage on that day and unfortunately hadn’t seen a fall due to the car blocking the view of Wade. This unfortunately made her case, weaker, as there had been no proof actual proof of the fall. Please don't use AI for this essay, let me know if you have any questions and also use the file, I sent you. The "Hess v. Estate of Klamm" article So just please follow the assignments instructions. Thank you
READ MORE >>
