Legal Case Summary

Heidi Cox v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.


Date Argued: Fri Jun 10 2011
Case Number: 10-35729
Docket Number: 7845563
Judges:Fisher, Gould, Paez
Duration: 34 minutes
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Summary

**Case Summary: Heidi Cox v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (Docket Number: 7845563)** **Court**: [Specify the Court where the case was heard, e.g., U.S. District Court, State Court] **Filing Date**: [Insert the date the case was filed] **Nature of the Case**: Personal Injury / Premises Liability **Parties Involved**: - **Plaintiff**: Heidi Cox - **Defendant**: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. **Background**: Heidi Cox filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., alleging that she sustained personal injuries due to an unsafe condition on the premises of one of their retail locations. The plaintiff contends that Wal-Mart failed to maintain a safe environment for its customers, resulting in her injury. **Facts**: - On [insert specific date], Heidi Cox was shopping at a Wal-Mart location when she encountered [describe the specific hazardous condition, e.g., a spill, an obstruction, etc.]. - As a result of this hazardous condition, the plaintiff fell and sustained injuries that required medical attention. - Plaintiff claims that Wal-Mart was aware or should have been aware of the unsafe condition and did not take appropriate action to rectify it. **Legal Issues**: - The primary legal issue is whether Wal-Mart Stores Inc. breached its duty of care to provide a safe shopping environment for customers and whether this breach directly caused Heidi Cox's injuries. **Claims**: - Negligence: The plaintiff alleges that Wal-Mart failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining its premises. - [Include any other relevant claims, e.g., negligence per se, failure to warn.] **Defendant's Position**: Wal-Mart denies the allegations and maintains that it acted reasonably to ensure the safety of its customers. The defendant may also argue that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent or that the incident was not foreseeable. **Outcome**: [If the case has been resolved, summarize the verdict or settlement; if it is ongoing, indicate the current status and any upcoming hearings or motions.] **Significance**: This case highlights the responsibilities and obligations of retail store owners in maintaining safe premises for their customers. It also underscores potential defenses available to corporations facing negligence claims. **Next Steps**: [Outline any scheduled court dates, hearings, or expected motions related to the case.] --- Note: Ensure to fill in specific details and legal findings relevant to the actual case, as the summary provided is a template and may not reflect the exact proceedings or outcome.

Heidi Cox v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.


Oral Audio Transcript(Beta version)

no audio transcript available