Sandra Primrose Vs Walmart Case Summary
Sandra Primrose versus Wal-Mart Case
The claim made by Plaintiff Sandra Primrose demanded procedural examination of her injury case against Wal-Mart stores and consequent compensation in regard to a concussion and the injuries she sustained upon consideration of her case by the court. However, Wal-Mart responded by claiming lack of material fact on the side of the plaintiff and requested the court to favor the procedure to their advantage by rendering summary judgment in accordance with Ricks v. City of Monroe, 44,811 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/0/09), 26 So.3d 858, writ denied, 2010–0391 (La.5/28/10), 36 So.3d 247 and in their favor according to Ricks, supra; Freeman v. Teague, 37, 932 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d 371.
The movant, having borne …show more content…
Considering that the complainant is in her 73rd year, this means that she is vulnerable to injuries resulting from adverse conditions such as the nature of Wal-Mart displays due to her condition at the time of incidence (age). If the court considers her first point of error, “whether the protruding corner of the crate was visible to her under the circumstances presented in this case’, then there is reason to do away with summary judgment. Logically, at 73, she might not have been able to see the protruding corner as well as the warning provided by the Wal-Mart due to her physical limitations.
In summary, the proof that the condition that led to plaintiff Primrose’ injury can determine the outcome of the case and also potentially ensures and precludes recovery in accordant with King v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 08–1491 (La.4/3/09), 9 So.3d 780; Dowdy v. City of Monroe, 46, 693 (La.App.2d Cir.11/2/11), 78 So.3d 791. Therefore, Wal-Mart should not be granted summary judgment.
Works Cited
King v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 08–1491 (La.4/3/09), 9 So.3d 780; Dowdy v. City of Monroe, 46, 693 (La.App.2d Cir.11/2/11), 78 So.3d 791
Ricks, supra; Freeman v. Teague, 37, 932 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d
The claim made by Plaintiff Sandra Primrose demanded procedural examination of her injury case against Wal-Mart stores and consequent compensation in regard to a concussion and the injuries she sustained upon consideration of her case by the court. However, Wal-Mart responded by claiming lack of material fact on the side of the plaintiff and requested the court to favor the procedure to their advantage by rendering summary judgment in accordance with Ricks v. City of Monroe, 44,811 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/0/09), 26 So.3d 858, writ denied, 2010–0391 (La.5/28/10), 36 So.3d 247 and in their favor according to Ricks, supra; Freeman v. Teague, 37, 932 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d 371.
The movant, having borne …show more content…
Considering that the complainant is in her 73rd year, this means that she is vulnerable to injuries resulting from adverse conditions such as the nature of Wal-Mart displays due to her condition at the time of incidence (age). If the court considers her first point of error, “whether the protruding corner of the crate was visible to her under the circumstances presented in this case’, then there is reason to do away with summary judgment. Logically, at 73, she might not have been able to see the protruding corner as well as the warning provided by the Wal-Mart due to her physical limitations.
In summary, the proof that the condition that led to plaintiff Primrose’ injury can determine the outcome of the case and also potentially ensures and precludes recovery in accordant with King v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 08–1491 (La.4/3/09), 9 So.3d 780; Dowdy v. City of Monroe, 46, 693 (La.App.2d Cir.11/2/11), 78 So.3d 791. Therefore, Wal-Mart should not be granted summary judgment.
Works Cited
King v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 08–1491 (La.4/3/09), 9 So.3d 780; Dowdy v. City of Monroe, 46, 693 (La.App.2d Cir.11/2/11), 78 So.3d 791
Ricks, supra; Freeman v. Teague, 37, 932 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d