Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright

Indiana Supreme Court
774 N.E.2d 891 (2002)


Facts

Wright (plaintiff) filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) (defendant) for negligence after she slipped on a puddle of water at a store, fell, and sustained injuries. Wal-Mart countered that Wright had been contributorily negligent. Prior to trial, a number of Wal-Mart employee documents were assembled into a “Store Manual” and provided to Wright. Several of the documents detailed how Wal-Mart employees were to respond to spills and other floor hazards. At trial, the manual was admitted into evidence. At the close of all the evidence, Wright submitted a jury instruction that said Wal-Mart’s rules, policies, practices, and procedures were evidence of the degree of care deemed by Wal-Mart to be ordinary care. Wal-Mart objected to the proposed instruction and argued that it should be left to the jury to determine what is, and is not, ordinary care. The trial court overruled Wal-Mart. The jury held for Wright. Wal-Mart appealed. The court of appeals affirmed and held that the instruction was proper, because it did not explicitly require the jury to find that the degree of care Wal-Mart subjectively believed to be ordinary care was the standard to which Wal-Mart should be held. Further, the appellate court noted that the trial court had properly instructed the jury that ordinary care was that exercised by a reasonably careful and ordinarily prudent person. The Indiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Boehm, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.