Session 3 Case Brief

A case brief is a concise summary of a case that includes:

1. Name and Citation of the Case
2. Basic Facts
3. Main Legal Issue(s)
4. Court's Decision
5. Court's Rationale (For the purposes of this assignment, this section in your brief must also answer all the questions at the end of the case.)

For this assignment, select one of the following cases from Jennings (2016) to brief:

• Case 8.5 Snapping at the Homeowner's Association (pp. 208-209)
• Case 10.2 Does "Pepsi Stuff" Include a Harrier Jet? (pp. 246-7)
• Case 11.3 Ships and Liability Passing in the Night? (pp. 277-278)

Format your brief using the five required components. Additional examples and tips are provided in How to Brief Cases and Analyze Case Problem (pdf). For information on how to correctly create citations to cases and statutes, refer to the following resources:

• Introduction to Basic Legal Citation
• Writing References for Federal Statutes
• Citing Court Decisions

APPENDIX A How to Brlef Cases and Analyle Case Problems How to Brief Cases To fully understand the law with respect to business, you need to be able to read and understand court decisions. To make this task easier, you can use a method of case analysis that is called brieng. There is a fairly standard procedure that you can follow when you \"brief\" any court case. You must first read the case opinion carefully. 'When you feel you understand the case, you can prepare a brief of it. Although the format of the brief may vary, typically it will present the essentials of the case under headings such as those listed below. I Citation. Give the full citation for the case, including the name of the case, the date it was decided, and the court that decided it. 2 Facts. Briefly indicate (a) the reasons for the lawsuit; (b) the identity and arguments of the plaintiE(s) and defendant(s), respectively; and (c) the lower court's decisionif appropriate. 3 Issue. Concisely phrase, in the form of a question, the essential issue before the court. (If more than one issue is involved, you may have twoor even morequestions here.) 4 Decision. Indicate herewith a \"yes\" or \"no,\" if possiblethe court's answer to the question (or questions) in the Issue section above. 5 Reason. Summarize as briefly as possible the reasons given by the court for its decision (or decisions) and the case or statutory law relied on by the court in arriving at its decision. An Example of a Brief Sample Court Case As an example of the format used in briefing cases, we present here a briefed version of the sample court case that was presented in Exhibit lA3 on page 32. BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2008. 512 F.3d 582. FACTS The Seattle Center is an entertainment \"zone\" in downtown Seattle, Washington, that attrach nearly ten million tourists each year. The center encompasses theaters, arenas, museums, exhibition halls, conference rooms, outdoor stadiums, and restaurants, and features street perfor- mers. Under the authority of the city, the center's director issued rules in 2002 to address safety con- cerns and other matters. Among other things, street performers were required to obtain permits and wear badges. After members of the public filed numerous complaints of threatening behavior by street performer and balloon artist Michael Berger, Seattle Center staff cited Berger for several rules violations. He filed a suit in a federal district court against the city and others, alleging, in part, that the rules violated his free speech rights under the First Amendment to the US. Constitution. The court issued a judgment in the plaintiff's favor. The city appealed to the US. Court oprpeals for the Ninth Circuit. ISSUE Did the rules issued by the Seattle Center under the city's authority meet the require- ments for valid restrictions on speech under the First Amendment? DECISION Yes. The US. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case for irther proceedings. \"Su ch content neutral and narrowly tai- lored rules * * * must be upheld.\" REASON The court concluded first that the rules requiring permits and badges were \"content neutral.\" Time, place, and manner restrictions do not violate the First Amendment if they burden all expression equally and do not allow officials to treat different messages differently. In this case, the rules met this test and thus did not discriminate based on content. The court also concluded that the rules were \"narrowly tailored\" to \"promote a substantial government interest that would be achieved less elfectively\" otherwise. With the rules, the city was trying to \"reduce territorial disputes among performers, deter patron harassment, and facilitate the identification and apprehension of offending performers.\" This was pursuant to the valid govemmental objective of protecting the safety and convenience of the other performers and the public generally. The public's complaints about Berger and others showed that unregulated street performances posed a threat to these inter- ests. The court was \"satisfied that the city's permit scheme was designed to irther valid govemmen- tal objectives.\" Review of Sample Court Case Here, we provide a review of the briefed version to indicate the kind of information that is contained in each section. CITATION The name of the case is Berger v. City of Seattle. Berger is the plaintiff; the City of Seate is the defendant. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided this case in 2008. The citation states that this case can be found in volume 512 of the Federal Reporter, Third Series, on page 582. FACTS The Facts section identifies the plaintiff and the defendant, describes the events leading up to this suit, the allegations made by the plaintiff in the initial suit, and {because this case is an appellate court decision) the lower court's ruling and the party appealing. The party appealing's argument on appeal is also sometimes included here. ISSUE The Issue section presents the central issue (or issues} decided by the court. In this case, the US. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether certain rules imposed on street performers by local government authorities satisfied the requirements for valid restrictions on speech under the First Amendment to the US. Constitution. DECISION The Decision section includes the court's decision on the issues before it. The deci- sion reflects the opinion of the judge or justice hearing the case. Decisions by appellate courts are frequently phrased in reference to the lower court's decision. In other words, the appellate court may \"affirm\" the lower court's ruling or \"reverse\" it. Here, the court determined that Seattle's rules were \"content neutral\" and \"narrowly tailored\" to \"promote a substantial government interest that would otherwise be achieved less effectively.\" The court found in favor of the city and reversed the lower court's ruling in the plaintist (Berger's) favor. REASON The Reason section includes references to the relevant laws and legal principles that the court applied in coming to its conclusion in the case. The relevant law in the Berger case included the requirements under the First Amendment for evaluating the purpose and cited of gov- ernment regulation with respect to expression. This section also explains the court's application of the law to the facts in this case. Analyzing Case Problems In addition to learning how to brief cases, students of business law and the legal environment also find it helpful to know how to analyze case problems. Part of the study of business law and the legal environment usually involves analyzing case problems, such as those included in this text at the end of each chapter. For each case problem in this book, we provide the relevant background and facts of the lawsuit and the issue before the court. When you are assigned one of these problems, your job will be to determine how the court should decide the issue, and why. In other words, you will need to engage in legal analysis and reasoning. Here, we offer some suggestions on how to make this task less daunt- ing. We begin by presenting a sample problem: While Janet Lawson, a famous pianist, was shopping in Quality Market, she slipped and fell on a wet floor in one of the aisles. The floor had recently been mopped by one of the store's employ- ees, but there were no signs warning customers that the floor in that area was wet. As a result of the fall, Lawson injured her right arm and was unable to perform piano concerts for the next six months. Had she been able to perform the scheduled concerts, she would have earned approx- imately $60,000 over that period of time. Lawson sued Quality Market for this amount, plus another $10,000 in medical expenses. She claimed that the store's failure to warn customers of the wet floor constituted negligence and therefore the market was liable for her injuries. Will the court agree with Lawson? Discuss. Understand the Facts This may sound obvious, but before you can analyze or apply the relevant law to a specic set of facts, you must clearly understand those facts. In other words, you should read through the case problem carefullymore than once, if necessaryto make sure you understand the identity of the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) in the case and the progression of events that led to the lawsuit. In the sample case problem just given, the identity of the parties is fairly obvious. Ianet Lawson is the one bringing the suit; therefore, she is the plainH. Quality Market, against whom she is bringing the suit, is the defendant. Some of the case problems you may work on have multiple plaintj's or defendants. Often, it is helpful to use abbreviations for the parties. To indicate a refer- ence to a plainE, for example, the pi symbolis often used, and a defendant is denoted by a delta Aa triangle. The events leading to the lawsuit are also fairly straightforward. Lawson slipped and fell on a wet floor, and she contends that Quality Market should be liable for her injuries because it was negli- gent in not posting a sign warning customers of the wet floor. When you are working on case problems, realize that the facts should be accepted as they are given. For example, in our sample problem, it should be accepted that the floor was wet and that there was no sign. In other words, avoid making conjectures, such as \"Maybe the floor wasn't too wet,\" or \"Maybe an employee was getting a sign to put up,\" or \"Maybe someone stole the sign.\" Questioning the facts as they are presented only adds confusion to your analysis. Legal Analysis and Reasoning Once you understand the facts given in the case problem, you can begin to analyze the case. Recall from Chapter I that the IRAC method is a helpful tool to use in the legal analysis and reasoning process. IRAC is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Applying this method to our sample problem would involve the following steps: I First, you need to decide what legal issue is involved in the case. In our sample case, the basic issue is whether Quality Market's failure to warn customers of the wet floor constituted negligence. As discussed in Chapter 12, negligence is a torta civil wrong. In a tort lawsuit, the plaintiE seeks to be compensated for another's wrongful act. A defendant will be deemed negligent if he or she breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff and the breach of that duty caused the plaintiff to suffer harm. 2 Once you have identied the issue, the next step is to determine what rule of law applies to the issue. To make this determination, you will want to review carefully the text of the chapter in which the relevant rule of law for the problem appears. Our sample case problem involves the tort of negligence, which is covered in Chapter 4. The applicable rule of law is the tort law principle that business owners owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect their customers (business invitees). Reasonable care, in this context, includes either removingor warning customers offoreseeable risks about which the owner knew or should have knonm Busineg owners need not warn customers of \"open and obvious\" risks, however. If a business owner breaches this duty of care (fails to exercise the appropriate degree of care toward customers), and the breach of duty causes a customer to be injured, the business owner will be liable to the customer for the customer's injuries. HOW TO BRIEF CASES AND ANALYEE EASE PROBLEMS Case 8.5. The Landings Assoc. Inc. v. Williams 728 S.E.2d 57'? (Ga. 2012) Snapping at the Homeowner's Association Facts Gwyneth Williams, then 83, was housesitting for her daughter and son-in-law at The Landings, a planned residential development with a golf course located on Skidaway Island off the Georgia coast. The Landings was developed in an area that was largely marsh, where indigenous alligators lived and thrived. In order to develop the property, The Landings installed a lagoon system that allowed enough drainage to allow residential development. After the project was completed in the 19?0s, the indigenous alligators began to move in and out of The Landings through its lagoon systems. Although alligators inhabited the area, no person had ever been attacked until the night of October 5, 2007, when Mrs. Williams went for a walk near one of the lagoons close to her daughter's home some time after 6:00 RM. The following morning, Mrs. Williams's body was found oating in the lagoon. Williams's right foot and both forearms had be en bitten off. Later, an eight-foot alligator was caught in the same lagoon, and, after the alligator was killed, parts of Williams's body were found in its stomach. Williams's family led suit against The Landings for negligence in developing and operating the area. The Landings countered with a defense of contributory negligencethat Mrs. Williams assumed the risk of walking alone among the lagoons at night. The trial court denied a motion for summary judgment in part. The court of appeals reversed in part, and the parties appealed. Judicial Opinion MELTON, justice The record shows that, prior to the attack, Williams was aware that the property was inhabited by alligators. Williams' son-in-law testified that, on at least one occasion, he was driving with Williams on property in The Landings when he stopped the car to allow Williams to look at an alligator. Williams' son-in-law also testied that Williams was, in fact, aware that there were alligators in the lagoons at The Landings and that he believed that Williams had a \"normal\" respect for wild animals. When asked whether he had ever discussed how to behave around wild alligators with Williams, her son-in-law responded: \"No. There was neverquite frankly, there was never any reason to. I mean she was an intelligent person. She wouldthere was no question in my mind thatI guess I have to answer that as it's not like talking to a five year old child stay an intelligent person. She wouldthere was no question in my mind thatI guess I have to answer that as it's not like talking to a five year old child stay away from alligators.\" In addition, Williams' son recalled a similar instance when he stopped the car to allow his mother to look at an alligator. At that time Williams mentioned that she did not like alligators and did not want to go anywhere near them. One who is familiar with the premises cannot rely for recovery upon the negligence of the defendant in failing to correct a patent defect where such party had equal means with the defendant of discovering it or equal knowledge of its existence. Williams had knowledge equal to The Landings entities about the presence of alligators in the community. In addition, Williams knew that the wild alligators were dangerous, saying herself that she would not want to be anywhere near them. Nonetheless, Williams chose to go for a walk at night near a lagoon in a community in which she knew wild alligators were present. This act undisputably shows that Williams either knowingly assumed the risks of walking in areas inhabited by wild alligators or failed to exercise ordinary care by doing so. Under these circumstances, the trial court should have granted the motions for summary judgment brought by the Landings entities regarding Williams' premises liability claims. While there is no doubt that Williams' death was a tragic event, Williams was not incompetent. A reasonable adult who is not disabled understands that small alligators have large parents and are capable of moving from one lagoon to another, and such an adult, therefore, assumes the risk of an alligator attack when, knowing that wild alligators are present in a community, walks near a lagoon in that community after dark The motion for summary judgment is granted. Dissenting Opinion BENHAM, Justice Notably absent from the majority's opinion are facts which, if construed in appellees' favor, require the denial of appellants' motions for summary judgment. For example, the Landings Association had an advertised policy that it removed from the 151 lagoons in the community alligators which were seven feet long or larger andlor alligators which were aggressive toward humans or pets; the appellants did not patrol or inspect the lagoons in order to remove large or aggressive alligators according to its policy, but rather relied on residents and employees to report said animals; and appellants did not post Dissenting Opinion BENHAM, Justice Notably absent from the majority's opinion are facts which, if construed in appellees' favor, require the denial of appellants' motions for summary judgment. For example, the Landings Association had an advertised policy that it removed from the 151 lagoons in the community alligators which were seven feet long or larger andfor alligators which were aggressive toward humans or pets; the appellants did not patrol or inspect the lagoons in order to remove large or aggressive alligators according to its policy, but rather relied on residents and employees to report said animals; and appellants did not post signs near the lagoons warning guests about alligators. One expert opined that the over eight foot long, 130 pound alligator that attacked the decedent had likely been in the lagoon where the decedent's body was found for some time because such mature alligators tend to be territorial and nest. There was also evidence in the record that the decedent called for help during the attack, but that appellants' security forces, which were not trained in dealing with alligators, responded to the wrong location and then stopped investigating, assuming that the sounds in question were bird calls. Reasonable minds could differ as to the essential elements of appellees' premises liability claim. indeed, there are very specific questions in this case that must go to a jury: whether decedent knew that large and aggressive alligators were living on the premises and in the lagoon in which her body was discovered; and whether appellants exercised reasonable care in inspecting and keeping the premises safe from alligators. Rather than allowing this evidence to be reviewed by a fact-nder, the majority opinion bars appellees' premises liability claim simply because the decedent once observed an alligator standing on the roadside. Case Questions 1. What fact is used to show that Ms. Williams assumed the risk on alligators? 2. Why does the dissent differ with the nding on assumption of risk