Facts: Ethel Flanzraich, 78 years old, slipped and fell on the steps of property owned by Robin's Wood. She broke her left leg and left arm. Flanzraich sued, claiming that Robin's Wood caused her fall by negligently painting the stairs. The defendant's employee, Anthony Monforte, had painted the steps. In its answer to the complaint, Robin's Wood denied all the significant allegations. During a preliminary conference with the trial judge, the parties agreed to hold depositions of both parties on August 4. Flanzraich appeared for deposition, but Robin's Wood did not furnish its employee, Monforte, nor did it offer any other company representative. The court then ordered the deposition of the defendant to take place the following April 2. Again, Robin's Wood produced neither Monforte nor anyone else. On July 16, the court ordered the defendant to produce its representative within 30 days. Once more, no one showed up for deposition. On August 18over one year after the original deposition dateFlanzraich moved to strike the defendant's answer, meaning that the plaintiff would win by default. The company argued that it had made diligent efforts to locate Monforte and force him to appear. However, all the letters sent to Monforte were addressed care of Robin's Wood. Finally, the company stated that it no longer employed Monforte. The trial judge granted the motion to strike the answer. That meant that Robin's Wood was liable for Flanzraich's fall. The only remaining issue was damages. The court determined that Robin's Wood owed $22,631 for medical expenses, $150,000 for past pain and suffering, and $300,000 for future pain and suffering. One day later, Flanzraich died of other causes. Robin's Wood appealed. Issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by striking the defendant's answer? Decision: No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed. Reasoning: Normally, a lawsuit must be decided on the evidence and reasonable conclusions. However, if a defendant fails to respond to discovery requests, and its failure is willful, extreme, and disrespectful of the court, a trial judge may strike the defendant's answer altogether. Robin's Wood failed to comply with three orders to appear for deposition. The company never produced Monforte while he worked there. It failed to notify the plaintiff when Monforte left, and it made no effort to produce another employee for deposition. The company did everything it could to ensure that Flanzraich would never speak with its worker. Had the company at least produced another representative, Flanzraich could have learned where Monforte had gone because the record indicates Robin's Wood knew his whereabouts. These delays were particularly menacing to Flanzraich's case because she was elderlya fact well known to the company. A trial judge may respond to such offensive conduct with appropriate orders

Read theStintoncase attached below.Include the number and the question in your answer.

1. The judge did not accept the defendant's answer to plaintiff's complaint. Why?

2. Do you think it is fair for the plaintiff to win by default. What factors did you consider in making your determination?