Torts Case Briefs
Torts Case Briefs Assignment
Students must write and submit a case brief to the school for each case listed below. Any cases not covered in the casebook may be located in books at a local law library or online at LexisNexis. If a student can’t find a required case, a different case on the same topic from the casebook may be used for preparation of a written case brief.
Note that students are required to read the cases in their casebook, then write their own briefs. Submitting an already-written brief from Casenote Legal Briefs books, online sites, such as casenotes.com, quimbee, lawnix, etc., or even from LexisNexis, is not allowed. Presenting such briefs as if they are one’s own is plagiarism, and will result in a grade of “Fail.” Again, students must read the actual cases, then write their own briefs.
The case briefs are graded as “Pass” or “Fail” only. The most common reason students fail the case briefs assignment is plagiarism. Therefore, students should take care to use quotation marks when quoting from the original case decision, and they should use their own words for all other parts of the briefs.
Students who need help in learning to write a case brief should read the article, Why and How to Write a Case Brief.
Students must submit all case briefs together, so students must complete the assignment for each course in which they are enrolled for the term, then submit them all at once. We recommend completing the case briefs for all courses and submitting them during the 5th to 7th month of study. Most students find it easiest to brief each required case as they come across it in their reading of the case book. Then, when they finish reading the book, they will also have finished the case briefs.
All the case briefs for the torts course must be in one document, with each separate case brief starting on a new page of the document. That is, students submit one document for Torts Case Briefs; they do not submit twelve separate documents with one case brief on each.
Note that in order to be eligible to request final exams, students must have submitted case briefs, and must receive a grade of “Pass.”
When students complete and pass the torts case briefs assignment, they receive credit for ten hours of verified academic engagement.
List of Required Cases for the Torts Case Briefs Assignment:
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (1967). (Battery)
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516, 444 U.S. 931, 100 S.Ct. 275, 62 L.Ed.2d 188 (1979). (Consent)
Larson v. St. Francis Hotel, 83 Cal.App.2d 210, 188 P.2d 513 (1948). (Negligence)
Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 (1948). (Problems in Determining which Party Caused the Harm)
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 59 A.L.R. 1253 (1928). (Unforeseeable Consequences)
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14 (1976). (Failure to Act)
Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108, 443 P.2d 561, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97 (1968). (Premise Liability)
Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 H & C 774, 159 Eng.Rep. 737, L.R. 1 Ex. 265 (1866). (Strict Liability)
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916). (Privity)
Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 762 F.2d 303 (1985). (Nuisance)
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). (Defamation)
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988). (Invasion of Privacy)
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.
TOPIC: Battery.
CASE: Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (1967).
FACTS: The plaintiff was a mathematician working for NASA near Houston. He was invited to a one-day meeting by Ampex Corporation and Defense Electronics being held at Carrousel. After the morning session, the guests, who were about thirty in number, went to the Brass Ring Club for lunch. Since the lunch was buffet-style, the plaintiff joined the queue. One of the guests in the line was a graduate student of Rice University who testified in the case. Just as he was about to be served, he was apprehended by Flynn, who snatched the plate from the plaintiff's hand and shouted that he could not be served there because he was a Negro. Even though he was not physically touched, he suffered great humiliation and mental hurt. It was determined that Flynn was an employee of Carrousel and managed the Brass Ring Club. The plaintiff sued the hotel for damages.
HISTORY: The jury at trial concluded that Flynn's behavior was malicious and awarded the plaintiff damages for the humiliation and disgrace, but the trial court set aside their verdict in favor of the defendants (hotel). Flynn had since passed on. The plaintiff appealed, and the civil appeal court upheld the trial court's decision forcing the plaintiff to subsequently seek redress in the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Was there battery involved?
Can the plaintiff recover damages for assault?
RULING: Yes. The previous decisions were reversed. The court concluded that even though there was no physical assault, grabbing the plate and shouting offensively constituted battery. This, in essence, meant that the plaintiff was entitled to damages.
RATIONALE: The judges argued that intentionally grabbing an object from someone amounts to a personal invasion. Battery should not necessarily involve touching someone's body or clothing.
RULE: Restatement of Torts says in part that protection includes any part of the body or anything else fastened to it. In this case, the plate was attached to the plaintiff’s hand.
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
TOPIC: Consent.
CASE: Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516, 444 U.S. 931, 100 S.Ct. 275, 62 L.Ed.2d 188 (1979).
FACTS: The plaintiff was a defender for the Denver Broncos team, which was playing against the Bengals on the material date. During the game, the plaintiff attempted to intercept a Bengal forward called Charles Clarke and fell to the ground. He watched the play continue while still on the ground, and Clarke struck him on the back of his head, probably out of frustration because they were trailing. Both continued playing without commenting. The officials did not call for a foul because the whole spectacle escaped their notice, and the plaintiff did not mention it to his coaches. The next day, however, the plaintiff could not play golf as he had intended due to soreness and pain. Even though he continued experiencing pain, he did not seek medical attention. Later he did so after losing employment at the Denver Broncos and discovered that he had a neck injury. He filed an action against the defendants for negligence and recklessness.
ISSUE: Did the player assume risk of injury due to the violent nature of the football game?
RULING: Yes. The district court of Colorado ruled in favor of the defendants.
RATIONALE: Even though Clarke was wrong in striking the plaintiff, the latter could claim damages because he knew that the game was violent by nature and characterized also by emotional outbursts. While getting into the game, therefore, he could not have expected anything short of violent physical behavior.
RULE: The rule of gross negligence in Colorado. According to Colorado law, this is intentional and reckless behavior. In this case, it could not be applied as the plaintiff had hoped because of the violent nature of the football game.
Larson v. St. Francis Hotel
TOPIC: Negligence.
CASE: Larson v. St. Francis Hotel, 83 Cal.App.2d 210, 188 P.2d 513 (1948).
FACTS: While walking on a sidewalk next to the St. Francis Hotel, the plaintiff was struck on the head by an armchair and became unconscious from the impact. No one saw where the chair came from, nor was there anything showing that it belonged to the hotel. However, there was no doubt that it came from a section of the hotel.
HISTORY: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages from the defendant, which was dismissed based on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine prompting the former to appeal.
ISSUE: Can the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply in this case?
RULING: No. The trial court’s decision was affirmed. The doctrine cannot apply unless an accident is caused by an object that is under the absolute control of the defendant.
RATIONALE: The judges concurred with the trial judges on the doctrine. To benefit from it, one must prove that an accident occurred. Further, they must show that the object that caused the accident was in the total control of the defendant. Lastly, they must show that the defendant would have averted the accident by exercising care. In this case, the plaintiff could only prove that the accident occurred but could not fulfill the other two requirements.
RULE: The res ipsa loquitur, as explained above, cannot be applied where the accident cannot be reasonably explained.
Summers v. Tice
TOPIC: Problems in Determining which Party Caused the Harm.
CASE: Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 (1948).
FACTS: On November 20, 1945, the plaintiff and two defendants were hunting quail on an open range, and they were armed with loaded shotguns. Before embarking on the expedition, the plaintiff had implored the defendants to exercise caution. While hunting, the two defendants shot at a quail in the same direction as the plaintiff. The defendants did so despite being aware of the plaintiff's location. The plaintiff was struck in the eye by one shot and in the lip by the other.
HISTORY: The plaintiff filed an action for personal injuries against the two defendants, which was granted, constraining the two to appeal.
ISSUE: Can the two defendants be held liable for negligence when the injuries could only have been caused by one of them?
RULING: Yes. The trial court's decision was upheld. Even though the plaintiff could not point out whose shot had struck them, there was no doubt that both were negligent.
RATIONALE: The defendants could not be absolved from blame because the plaintiff was not in a position to unequivocally say who it was that shot him. Both had acted negligently and wrongly, causing the plaintiff injuries. Therefore, it was up to them to determine who caused the injuries.
RULE: Alternative liability. This is a legal principle used when multiple defendants have been charged with negligence causing injuries to a plaintiff, but the latter cannot show beyond doubt which one.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
TOPIC: Unforeseeable Consequences.
CASE: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 59 A.L.R. 1253 (1928).
FACTS: The plaintiff was traveling to Rockaway beach and was standing on the platform of the defendant's railroad after purchasing a ticket. A train bound for another place stopped, and two men ran to catch it. One of the men managed to get into the already moving train, but the other one seemed to fall. A guard who had opened the door reached to assist him while another pushed from behind. In the process, the man dropped a small package containing fireworks that exploded after falling on the rails. The explosion threw some shards several feet away; some hit the plaintiff and caused her injuries.
HISTORY: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for injuries caused through negligence which the trial court granted. This prompted the defendant to file an appeal in the appellate division, which affirmed the trial court's verdict. The defendant, yet again, appealed.
ISSUE: Can the railway guards be held liable for a proximate cause?
RULING: No. The appellate court’s decision was reversed. The railway guards did not have a duty to the plaintiff in helping the man with the package to board the train.
RATIONALE: The judges argued that for a defendant to be adjudged negligent, there should be a breach of duty to the plaintiff. In this case, the guards were not duty-bound to the plaintiff. This, in essence, means that even though they were negligent in helping the man, they were not deemed negligent concerning the plaintiff. The judges also undertook to explain what negligence is or how it should be seen to occur. In this regard, they explained that negligence is not applicable unless an infringement or a violation of a right has been perpetrated. In a word, the injuries had been caused by unforeseen circumstances.
RULE: The judges relied on the proximate cause. It says that for injuries to be deemed to have been caused in a legal sense, the person who causes them, either directly or otherwise, must owe a duty to the injured person.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California.
TOPIC: Failure to Act.
CASE: Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14 (1976).
FACTS: On October 27, 1969, Tatiana Tarasoff was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar. The plaintiffs (Tatiana's parents) claimed that two months before the murder, the killer had made his intentions known to Dr. Lawrence Moore. The doctor was a psychologist employed by the University of California in Berkeley. Dr. Moore requested the campus police to detain Poddar, which they did. However, when he appeared rational, he was released, and Moore's superior instructed against any further action to detain Poddar. The killer was sharing an apartment with Tatiana's brother, and he killed her shortly after returning from Brazil. No one had warned Tatiana of the impending danger. Dr. Moore, who was Poddar's therapist, had determined his condition as "paranoid schizophrenic reaction, acute and severe.” He had suggested that he be involuntarily admitted as he posed a threat to others.
HISTORY: The plaintiffs filed an action against the university's psychiatrists, claiming they had a duty to warn their daughter of the death threat made by a patient of theirs. The Superior Court of California dismissed the action, and the plaintiffs requested a review.
ISSUE: Did the defendants owe a duty of reasonable care to the deceased?
Were the defendants liable for negligence by failing to confine Podder?
RULING: The court held that the therapists had a duty to warn Tatiana of the impending danger. Further, it held that the therapists and police officers should be exempted from liability for failing to detain Poddar. Lastly, the court ruled that the police did not have a special relationship with either Tatiana or Poddar that would have imposed on them the duty to warn Tatiana o...