For the first class read pages 1-10 in the Prosser, Wade & Schwartz
casebook.
Try to "brief" the case of Brown v. Kendall, which begins on page
6. To brief a case, try to write down in a few sentences your understanding
of answers to the following questions:
1) What are the essential facts of the case. That is, what happened outside
of court that formed the basis of the lawsuit?
2) What are the legal issues? That is, on what questions of law do the parties
differ? What general rule of law does the plaintiff want the court to announce?
What rule of law does the defendant want the court to announce?
3) What are the court's holdings on those issues? That is, what rules of
law does the court's opinion establish? The holding is not that Mr. Jenner
wins. That is only the result of the case. A holding is a statement of a
general rule of law applicable to this and to similar cases.
4) What are the court's reasons for its holdings?
(Hint: The judge writing the decision will not always tell you the reasons
for the decision.) (Second hint: the four elements are inter-dependent.
For example, one cannot know what facts are essential to the case until
one understands the legal issues, the holdings and the rationale. Consequently
one must read the case at least twice and give the matter some thought before
briefing the case.)
In reading this case try to keep some basic things in mind. Law suits can
be thought of as being of two types, criminal and civil. In a criminal case
the party suing is the government which is represented by the prosecutor.
The criminal defendant has a number of constitutional rights, including
the right to a lawyer, the right against self-incrimination, and the right
to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If found guilty, the criminal defendant may be sentenced to serve time in
prison or to pay a fine to the government.
In a civil case, the plaintiff, the party bringing the suit is usually a
private party. The defendant in a civil case does not have the same constitutional
rights as a defendant in a criminal case. For example, the plaintiff in
a civil case does not have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The plaintiff only has to show that it is more likely than not that the
facts are as it contends. If the plaintiff wins a civil case, the defendant
is not found guilty nor is he or she sentenced to prison. The plaintiff
only wins a "judgment," which means that the plaintiff can have
the sheriff go out, if necessary, and seize property belonging to the defendant
to pay the amount of the judgment. Of course, a defendant may choose to
write a check for the amount of the judgment to avoid the sheriff from doing
that. When the defendant has liability insurance, the insurance company
will do that (provided that the insurance is adequate).
In any tort case, like Kendall v. Brown, the plaintiff must show four things
to win a case:
1. That the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty.
2. That the defendant breached that duty to the plaintiff.
3. That the defendant was a cause of the plaintiffs loss, and
4. That the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.
The plaintiff does not win a case merely by showing 3 out of these 4 requirements.
The first requirement, that the defendant owed a legal duty, is a question
of law for the judges to decide. The other three issues are questions of
fact that are normally decided by the jury. In Kendall, which of these four
requirements did the plaintiffs fail to show?
As you read these materials, try to understand what the court did. Try also
to come up with your own solutions to how this case could have been resolved.
You should also try to brief the two cases on pages 4 and 5.
