Van et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, inc. et al

Filing 594

AMENDED FINAL VERDICT FORM Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on January 12, 2015 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

NATHALIE THUY VAN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG
AMENDED VERDICT FORM

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG
AMENDED VERDICT FORM

VERDICT FORM

1
2

Part A.

LIABILITY

3

False Imprisonment

4

1. Has Van proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that on November 24,
2007, Wal-Mart committed the tort of false imprisonment?

5
6

___________
Yes

___________
No

7
Unruh Act
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

2. Has Van proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that on November 24,
2007, Wal-Mart violated the Unruh Act and denied Van full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and service of Wal-Mart’s
business based on her race, ancestry or national origin?
___________
Yes

___________
No

Section 1981
3. Has Van proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that on November 24,
2007, Wal-Mart violated Section 1981 and denied Van equal accommodation
under the law?

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

___________
Yes

___________
No

Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision or Retention
4. Has Van proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that on November 24, 2007
Wal-Mart committed the tort of negligent hiring, training, supervision or
retention?
___________
Yes

___________
No

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

24
25
26
27

5. Has Van proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that on November 24,
2007, Wal-Mart committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress
against her?
___________
Yes

___________
No

28
2
Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG
AMENDED VERDICT FORM

1
2

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
6. Has Van proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that on November 24,
2007, Wal-Mart committed the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress?

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

___________
Yes

___________
No

Negligent Misrepresentation
7. Has Van proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that on November 24,
2007, Wal-Mart committed the tort of negligent misrepresentation?
___________
Yes

___________
No

Negligence Claim
8. Has Van proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that on November 24,
2007, Wal-Mart was negligent in its conduct toward Van?

12
13
14
15
16
17

___________
Yes

___________
No

If your answer to Question 8 is “Yes,” then please proceed to Question 9. If your answer to
Question 8 is “No,” proceed directly to Part B.
9. Was Wal-Mart’s negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to Van?
___________
Yes

___________
No

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

If your answer to Question 9 is “Yes,” then please proceed to Question 10. If your answer to
Question 9 is “No,” proceed directly to Part B.
10. Was Rainier negligent?
___________
Yes

___________
No

If your answer to Question 10 is “Yes,” then please proceed to Question 11. If your answer to
Question 10 is “No,” proceed directly to Part B.
11. Was Rainier’s negligence a substantial factor in causing Van’s harm?
___________
Yes

___________
No

27
28

If your answer to Question 11 is “Yes,” then please proceed to Question 12. If your answer to
Question 11 is “No,” proceed directly to Part B.
3
Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG
AMENDED VERDICT FORM