USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Instructions
If needed, review the Guide to
Case Briefing
.Download Guide to Case Briefing.Case Briefing
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 briefing. 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 complete the case brief worksheet. While you are free to consult outside sources to better help you understand the cases, you must use your own words when completing your case brief worksheet
Legal Environment of Business BUS G108
Case Briefing
How to Brief a Case
When briefing a case, your goal is to reduce the information from the case into a format
that will provide you with a helpful reference in class and for review. Most importantly, by
“briefing” a case, you will grasp the problem the court faced (the issue); the relevant
law or rule the court used to solve it (the decision); and how the court applied the rule to
the facts (the reason) You will then be ready to not only discuss the case, but to compare
and contrast it to other cases involving a similar issue. The volume of your brief is not
important. Be concise.
When completing your Case Brief Worksheet, follow these rules:
1. Read the case at least once before you start your brief;
2. Write the brief in your own words — don’t just copy parts of the opinion; and
3. Organize your brief – use the format in the worksheet and be as concise as
you can.
Case brief format:
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.
II.
Facts
Write a brief summary of the facts as the court found them to be. Briefly indicate (a) the
reasons for the lawsuit and (b) the identity and arguments of the plaintiff(s) and
defendant(s), respectively. Eliminate facts that are not relevant to the court’s analysis.
III.
Issue
What is the question or essential issue being presented to the court? Usually, only one
issue will be discussed, but sometimes there will be more. Pick the one you think is
most important to what we studied in this unit.
IV.
Decision
Indicate here the court’s answer to the question (or questions) in the Issue section
above. Indicate here—with a “yes” or “no,” if possible—the court’s answer to the
question you identified in the Issue section above.
V.
Reason
Summarize as briefly as possible the reason(s) given by the court for its decision and
the law relied on by the court in arriving at its decision. The court will have examined the
facts in light of the rule, and probably considered all “sides” and arguments presented to
Legal Environment of Business BUS G108
Case Briefing
it. How courts apply the rule to the facts and analyze the case must be understood in
order to properly predict outcomes in future cases involving the same issue. What does
the court consider to be a relevant fact given the rule of law? How does the court
interpret the rule: Resist the temptation to merely repeat what the court said in analyzing
the facts: what does it mean to you? Summarize the court’s rationale in your own words.
Sample Case Brief Worksheet
I.
Citation
What is the full name of the case, court, and year of decision?
Rael v. Cadena, 93 N.M. 684, 604 P.2d 822 (Ct. App. 1979) or Rael v. Cadena, Court
of Appeals of New Mexico, 1979
II.
Facts
Who are the parties to the lawsuit, what is their dispute, and how did they get
to the Supreme Court? In your own words, only include the few important
facts necessary to understand the case, e.g., the time of day a defendant was
arrested is usually not important, etc.
While visiting Emilio Cadena’s home, Eddie Rael was beaten by Emilio’s nephew,
Manuel Cadena. After the attack began, Emilio yelled to Manuel “kill him!” and “hit him
more!” Emilio never actually struck Rael nor physically participated in the battery. Rael
was hospitalized as a result of the beating.
III.
Issue
What is the basic legal question regarding what specific provision of law that
is to be decided in the case?
Under tort law, does liability for battery arise when an individual, present during the
battery, encourages the perpetrator of the battery by yelling “kill him” and “hit him more”
thus inciting the perpetration of the battery though he takes no actual part in the
physical beating?
IV.
Decision
What is the majority’s basic answer to the basic legal question in the case?
Yes. An individual may be liable for battery by encouraging or inciting the perpetrator
by words or acts.
V.
Reason
What rule of law was announced in the case? Explain the reasoning/rationale
behind the court’s decision. What was the court’s reason for why it reached its
decision?
Legal Environment of Business BUS G108
Case Briefing
The rule of law in the United States is: Civil liability for assault and battery is not limited
to the direct perpetrator, but extends to any person who, by any means, aids or
encourages the act. The act of verbal encouragement at the scene may give rise to
liability because the perpetrator is goaded and encouraged at the behest of the person
encouraging the battery. Here, Emilio encouraged Manuel to beat Rael and to continue
to beat him. The battery may not have occurred or continued but for Emilio’s
encouragement. Therefore, Emilio had some part in the beating even though he never
physically contacted Rael. Thus, Emilio is liable for the battery for aiding in its
commission and encouraging the act.
Business Law BUS G110
Case Brief #2
Whitlock v. University of Denver
744 P.2d 54 (Supreme Court of Colorado 1987)
On June 19, 1978, at approximately 10:00 p.m., plaintiff Oscar Whitlock suffered a paralyzing
injury while attempting to complete a one-and-three-quarters front flip on a trampoline. The
injury rendered him a quadriplegic. The trampoline was owned by the Beta Theta Pi fraternity
(the Beta house) and was situated on the front yard of the fraternity premises, located on the
University campus. At the time of his injury, Whitlock was twenty years old, attended the
University of Denver, and was a member of the Beta house, where he held the office of acting
house manager. The property on which the Beta house was located was leased to the local
chapter house association of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity by the defendant University of Denver.
Whitlock had extensive experience jumping on trampolines. He began using trampolines in
junior high school and continued to do so during his brief tenure as a cadet at the United States
Military Academy at West Point, where he learned to execute the one-and-three-quarters front
flip. Whitlock testified that he utilized the trampoline at West Point every other day for a period
of two months. He began jumping on the trampoline owned by the Beta house in September of
1977. Whitlock recounted that in the fall and spring prior to the date of his injury, he jumped on
the trampoline almost daily. He testified further that prior to the date of his injury, he had
successfully executed the one-and-three-quarters front flip between seventy-five and one
hundred times.
During the evening of June 18 and early morning of June 19, 1978, Whitlock attended a party at
the Beta house, where he drank beer, vodka and scotch until 2:00 a.m. Whitlock then retired and
did not awaken until 2:00 p.m. on June 19. He testified that he jumped on the trampoline
between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., and again at 7:00 p.m. At 10:00 p.m., the time of the injury,
there again was a party in progress at the Beta house, and Whitlock was using the trampoline
with only the illumination from the windows of the fraternity house, the outside light above the
front door of the house, and two street lights in the area. As Whitlock attempted to perform the
one-and-three-quarters front flip, he landed on the back of his head, causing his neck to break.
Whitlock brought suit against the manufacturer and seller of the trampoline, the University, the
Beta Theta Pi fraternity and its local chapter, and certain individuals in their capacities as
representatives of the Beta Theta Pi organizations. Whitlock reached settlements with all of the
named defendants except the University, so only the negligence action against the University
proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Whitlock, assessing his total damages
at $ 7,300,000. The jury attributed twenty-eight percent of causal negligence to the conduct of
Whitlock and seventy-two percent of causal negligence to the conduct of the University. The
trial court accordingly reduced the amount of the award against the University to $ 5,256,000.
The University moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, a new
trial. The trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding that as
a matter of law, no reasonable jury could have found that the University was more negligent than
Whitlock, and that the jury’s monetary award was the result of sympathy, passion or prejudice.
Business Law BUS G110
Case Brief #2
A panel of the court of appeals reversed…by a divided vote. Whitlock v. University of
Denver, 712 P.2d 1072 (Colo. App. 1985). The court of appeals held that the University owed
Whitlock a duty of due care to remove the trampoline from the fraternity premises or to
supervise its use.…The case was remanded to the trial court with orders to reinstate the verdict
and damages as determined by the jury. The University then petitioned for certiorari review, and
we granted that petition.
II.
A negligence claim must fail if based on circumstances for which the law imposes no duty of
care upon the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff. [Citations] Therefore, if Whitlock’s
judgment against the University is to be upheld, it must first be determined that the University
owed a duty of care to take reasonable measures to protect him against the injury that he
sustained.
Whether a particular defendant owes a legal duty to a particular plaintiff is a question of law.
[Citations] “The court determines, as a matter of law, the existence and scope of the duty—that
is, whether the plaintiff’s interest that has been infringed by the conduct of the defendant is
entitled to legal protection.” [Citations] In Smith v. City & County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125
(Colo. 1986), we set forth several factors to be considered in determining the existence of duty in
a particular case:
Whether the law should impose a duty requires consideration of many factors including, for
example, the risk involved, the foreseeability and likelihood of injury as weighed against the
social utility of the actor’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury or
harm, and the consequences of placing the burden upon the actor.
…A court’s conclusion that a duty does or does not exist is “an expression of the sum total of
those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the plaintiff is [or is not] entitled to
protection.”
…
We believe that the fact that the University is charged with negligent failure to act rather than
negligent affirmative action is a critical factor that strongly militates against imposition of a duty
on the University under the facts of this case. In determining whether a defendant owes a duty to
a particular plaintiff, the law has long recognized a distinction between action and a failure to
act—”that is to say, between active misconduct working positive injury to others [misfeasance]
and passive inaction or a failure to take steps to protect them from harm [nonfeasance].” W.
Keeton, § 56, at 373. Liability for nonfeasance was slow to receive recognition in the law. “The
reason for the distinction may be said to lie in the fact that by ‘misfeasance’ the defendant has
created a new risk of harm to the plaintiff, while by ‘nonfeasance’ he has at least made his
situation no worse, and has merely failed to benefit him by interfering in his
affairs.” Id. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 (1965) summarizes the law on this point as
follows:
Business Law BUS G110
Case Brief #2
The fact that an actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another’s
aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action.
Imposition of a duty in all such cases would simply not meet the test of fairness under
contemporary standards.
In nonfeasance cases the existence of a duty has been recognized only during the last century in
situations involving a limited group of special relationships between parties. Such special
relationships are predicated on “some definite relation between the parties, of such a character
that social policy justifies the imposition of a duty to act.” W. Keeton, § 56, at 374. Special
relationships that have been recognized by various courts for the purpose of imposition of a duty
of care include common carrier/passenger, innkeeper/guest, possessor of land/invited entrant,
employer/employee, parent/child, and hospital/patient. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314
A (1965); 3 Harper and James, § 18.6, at 722–23. The authors of the Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 314 A, comment b (1965), state that “the law appears…to be working slowly toward a
recognition of the duty to aid or protect in any relation of dependence or of mutual dependence.”
…
III.
The present case involves the alleged negligent failure to act, rather than negligent action. The
plaintiff does not complain of any affirmative action taken by the University, but asserts instead
that the University owed to Whitlock the duty to assure that the fraternity’s trampoline was used
only under supervised conditions comparable to those in a gymnasium class, or in the alternative
to cause the trampoline to be removed from the front lawn of the Beta house.…If such a duty is
to be recognized, it must be grounded on a special relationship between the University and
Whitlock. According to the evidence, there are only two possible sources of a special
relationship out of which such a duty could arise in this case: the status of Whitlock as a student
at the University, and the lease between the University and the fraternity of which Whitlock was
a member. We first consider the adequacy of the student-university relationship as a possible
basis for imposing a duty on the University to control or prohibit the use of the trampoline, and
then examine the provisions of the lease for that same purpose.
A.
The student-university relationship has been scrutinized in several jurisdictions, and it is
generally agreed that a university is not an insurer of its students’ safety. [Citations] The
relationship between a university and its students has experienced important change over the
years. At one time, college administrators and faculties stood in loco parentis to their students,
which created a special relationship “that imposed a duty on the college to exercise control over
student conduct and, reciprocally, gave the students certain rights of protection by the
college.” Bradshaw, 612 F.2d at 139. However, in modern times there has evolved a gradual
reapportionment of responsibilities from the universities to the students, and a corresponding
departure from the in loco parentis relationship. Id.at 139–40. Today, colleges and universities
Business Law BUS G110
Case Brief #2
are regarded as educational institutions rather than custodial ones. Beach, 726 P.2d at 419
(contrasting colleges and universities with elementary and high schools).
…
…By imposing a duty on the University in this case, the University would be encouraged to
exercise more control over private student recreational choices, thereby effectively taking away
much of the responsibility recently recognized in students for making their own decisions with
respect to private entertainment and personal safety. Such an allocation of responsibility would
“produce a repressive and inhospitable environment, largely inconsistent with the objectives of a
modern college education.” Beach, 726 P.2d at 419.
The evidence demonstrates that only in limited instances has the University attempted to impose
regulations or restraints on the private recreational pursuits of its students, and the students have
not looked to the University to assure the safety of their recreational choices. Nothing in the
University’s student handbook, which contains certain regulations concerning student conduct,
reflects an effort by the University to control the risk-taking decisions of its students in their
private recreation.…Indeed, fraternity and sorority self-governance with minimal supervision
appears to have been fostered by the University.
…
Aside from advising the Beta house on one occasion to put the trampoline up when not in use,
there is no evidence that the University officials attempted to assert control over trampoline use
by the fraternity members. We conclude from this record that the University’s very limited
actions concerning safety of student recreation did not give Whitlock or the other members of
campus fraternities or sororities any reason to depend upon the University for evaluation of the
safety of trampoline use.…Therefore, we conclude that the student-university relationship is not
a special relationship of the type giving rise to a duty of the University to take reasonable
measures to protect the members of fraternities and sororities from risks of engaging in extracurricular trampoline jumping.
The plaintiff asserts, however, that we should recognize a duty of the University to take
affirmative action to protect fraternity members because of the foreseeability of the injury, the
extent of the risks involved in trampoline use, the seriousness of potential injuries, and the
University’s superior knowledge concerning these matters. The argument in essence is that a
duty should spring from the University’s natural interest in the welfare and safety of its students,
its superior knowledge of the nature and degree of risk involved in trampoline use, and its
knowledge of the use of trampolines on the University campus. The evidence amply supports a
conclusion that trampoline use involves risks of serious injuries and that the potential for an
injury such as that experienced by Whitlock was foreseeable. It shows further that prior injuries
resulting from trampoline accidents had been reported to campus security and to the student
clinic, and that University administrators were aware of the number and severity of trampoline
injuries nationwide.
Business Law BUS G110
Case Brief #2
The record, however, also establishes through Whitlock’s own testimony that he was aware of
the risk of an accident and injury of the very nature that he experienced.…
We conclude that the relationship between the University and Whitlock was not one of
dependence with respect to the activities at issue here, and provides no basis for the recognition
of a duty of the University to take measures for protection of Whitlock against the injury that he
suffered.
B.
We next examine the lease between the University and the fraternity to determine whether a
special relationship between the University and Whitlock can be predicated on that document.
The lease was executed in 1929, extends for a ninety-nine year term, and gives the fraternity the
option to extend the term for another ninety-nine years. The premises are to be occupied and
used by the fraternity “as a fraternity house, clubhouse, dormitory and boarding house, and
generally for religious, educational, social and fraternal purposes.” Such occupation is to be
“under control of the tenant.” (emphasis added) The annual rental at all times relevant to this
case appears from the record to be one dollar. The University has the obligation to maintain the
grounds and make necessary repairs to the building, and the fraternity is to bear the cost of such
maintenance and repair.
…
We conclude that the lease, and the University’s actions pursuant to its rights under the lease,
provide no basis of dependence by the fraternity members upon which a special relationship can
be found to exist between the University and the fraternity members that would give rise to a
duty upon the University to take affirmative action to assure that recreational equipment such as
a trampoline is not used under unsafe conditions.
IV.
Considering all of the factors presented, we are persuaded that under the facts of this case the
University of Denver had no duty to Whitlock to eliminate the private use of trampolines on its
campus or to supervise that use. There exists no special relationship between the parties that
justifies placing a duty upon the University to protect Whitlock from the well-known dangers of
using a trampoline. Here, a conclusion that a special relationship existed between Whitlock and
the University sufficient to warrant the imposition of liability for nonfeasance would directly
contravene the competing social policy of fostering an educational environment of student
autonomy and independence.
We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and return this case to that court with directions
to remand it to the trial court for dismissal of Whitlock’s complaint against the University.
Case Brief Worksheet – BUS G108
I.
Citation
What is the full name of the case, court, and year of decision?
II.
Facts
Who are the parties to the lawsuit, what is their dispute, and how did they get to the
Supreme Court? In your own words, only include the few important facts necessary
to understand the case, e.g., the time of day a defendant was arrested is
usually not important, etc.
III.
Issue
What is the basic legal question regarding what specific provision of law that is to be
decided in the case?
IV.
Decision
What is the majority’s basic answer to the basic legal question in the case?
V.
Reason
What rule of law was announced in the case? Explain the reasoning/rationale behind
the court’s decision. What was the court’s reason for why it reached its decision?
