Ronald Lee Verrette Jr.
Business Law
Case Activity I
Chapter 3-5
Pg. 72
Litigates Involved: Plaintiff(s): Rita Peatie VS. Defendant(s): Wal-Mart, Inc.
Case Briefing: Rita Peatie got injured at a Wal-Mart, and Rita Peatie is suing Wal-Mart for “recovery” of the injuries she sustained from Wal-Mart’s “negligence” (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). “Recovery” is where when either the “plaintiff(s) and/or the “defendants” are trying to recover either “punitive damages” and/or “compensatory damages” (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). “Punitive damages” are money damages that may be awarded to the “plaintiff(s) to punish the “defendant(s)”, and deter future similar conduct and/or circumstances (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). “Compensatory” damages are a money award equivalent to the actual values of injuries or damages sustained by the aggrieved party (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). “Negligence” is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015).
Motion: 01) Rita Peatie filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart in a Connecticut court in the State of Connecticut (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015).
02) Rita Peatie requested an extension to the case for “discovery” reasons (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015).
03) Then Rita filed a second motion for a new trial for “discovery” reasons (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., (2015). “Discovery” is when either the “plaintiff(s) or the “defendant” is trying to find some evidence or proof regarding the case that is being tried (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015).
04) Rita asked the courts on the day of the trial to stop and lift the “protective order” which was like 4 years after the alleged injury has happened (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015).
Response: Wal-Mart responded back by requesting for a “nonbinding arbitration”, and both the plaintiff and the defendant(s) Wal-Mart agreed to this. “Nonbinding arbitration” which means that there was a third party will hear, try the case, to come up with a decision, and the decisions are not legal, binding, or enforceable (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015).
Issue(s): 01) Rita Peatie and Wal-Mart, Inc. both agreed for a “nonbinding arbitration” which means that there was a third party will hear, try the case, to come up with a decision, and the decisions are not legal, binding, or enforceable (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). 02) Then 10 days before the arbitration meeting Rita Peatie asks for more time, and was given 4 more months before the next hearing to find “discovery” (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). “Discovery” is when either the “plaintiff(s) or the “defendant” is trying to find some evidence or proof regarding the case that is being tried (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). But when Rita asked for more time on the new hearing date she was denied by the courts (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). The arbitration meeting still took place and the arbitrator found in the favor of Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart won (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015).
03) On the second motion Rita Peatie was given for new trial ordered by the courts. Rita requested an additional 5 more months to get proof that Wal-Mart knew about her being injured through “discovery” reasons (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). The courts issued a “protective order” against Rita’s request (Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F., 2015). “Protective order” A court order, direction, decree, or command to protect a person from further harassment, “Service of Process’, or “discovery”. A protective order can limit the time and place where a deposition can be taken, restrict the inspection of documents in the