*Facts: Plaintiff was walking in wal-mart when she slipped on a puddle of water in the lawn department. She alleged they were negligent in the maintenance, care and inspection of the premises. Wal-Mart said she was also negligent.
*Procedure: Jury found for the plaintiff and awarded damages. ? appealed that the instruction given to the jury was erroneous.
*Issue: Were the employees held to a higher standard of care because they had an employee handbook of procedures?
*Reasoning: You can set standards for yourself that exceed ordinary care and the fact that you’ve done that shouldn’t be used as evidence tending to show the degree that you believe is ordinary. The law has long recognized that failure to follow a party’s precautionary steps or procedures is not necessarily failure to exercise ordinary care. The instructions to the jury were incorrect because they told the jury to hold Wal-Mart to a subjective view rather than objective view of ordinary care.