case brief assignment 2

Your case to brief is Mays v. Trump Indiana, Inc.,255 F.3d 351

A point of instruction is warranted prior to your embarking upon your case brief project. You will probably note some significant differences between the case you have been assigned and the cases in the textbook.The cases in the textbook have been edited so that they present only the issues, judicial reasoning and decision on the substantive law related to the chapter of study. Your case brief may contain procedural law issues or tangential questions (do not brief those points).To prepare a proper brief you must first ascertain the substantive law discussed in the case, i.e. contract, tort, etc. and then develop your brief around those issues.The operative word is “brief” – so don’t be verbose; yet present it in a manner and format which is easy to read and conveys the essence of the facts, reasoning and ruling. Now for some assistance – Finding Case:

Finding your case is part of the exercise,

The following link will further elucidate the process:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A…

Here is a web site on case briefing for those who desire to see examples and learn further intricacies of the process

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A…

Here is an example of an erudite and succinct case brief:

Talmage v. Smith, 101 Mich. 370, 45 Am. St. Rep. 414, 59 N.W. 656 (Mich. 1894).

Facts: Talmage (P) and several other children were playing on the roofs of sheds on Smith’s (D) property. Smith ordered the children to get down and threw a stick at one of the boys. The stick missed its intended target and struck Talmage in the eye. Talmage lost all sight in the eye and sued for battery to recover for personal injuries.

Evidence was offered showing that Smith threw the stick intending to frighten (i.e. assault) but not hit a different boy. The trial court entered judgment for Talmage and Smith appealed on the grounds that he did not have the intent to hit Talmage and was therefore not liable for battery.

Issue: If an actor intends to inflict an intentional tort upon one party and accidentally harms a second party, can the actor be held liable to the second party for battery?

Holding and Rule: Yes. If an actor intends to inflict an intentional tort upon one party and accidentally harms a second party, the actor can be held liable to the second party for battery under the doctrine of transferred intent.

If an actor intends an act against a party and that act impacts upon another the actor is liable for the injuries suffered. The fact that the injury resulted to a party other than was intended does not relieve the defendant from responsibility. Smith will not be relieved of liability because he intended to injure someone else.

Disposition: Affirmed.

Effect on Business and Society: The transferred intent torts under common law are: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. If an actor has the intent to commit any of the transferred intent torts, the actor will be liable for all other transferred intent torts that result from that act. The actor’s liability extends to all parties harmed, not merely the original intended victim.

natura non facit saltum ita nec lex

Be mindful to carefully read my instructions of the case briefing process, as well as Appendix A of the text, before attempting the assignment. This cannot be written like a book report or a newspaper article.It requires your use of your critical legal thinking skill and an erudite articulation of the relevant issue, law and legal reasoning by the judges.

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Code "Newclient"