Case Briefing: The Four Step Process

Step Two (Continued): Brief the Case Using This Books Case Briefing Format
    Holding: The holding turns out to be the answer to the question(s) we ask as the issue.  As mentioned earlier, the paramount reason to brief a case is to extract the holding.  Under “holding” write, "1) Yes.  One who voluntarily begins to render assistance must use reasonable care in carrying out such assistance.  2) Yes.  When people are engaged in a common undertaking, a special relationship is formed, implying an obligation to assist if such assistance can be carried out safely.”

    The Result: This section is included to act as a quick reminder of how the case came out.  Here write, "Court finds Siegrist did owe duty to injured that was breached.  Judgment for P Farwell."
   
    Arguments of P and D: This section is designed to put you in touch with the evolution of the arguments.  The Professor's will expect you to know more than just the rules of law.  The Prof's are well aware of the fact that you can get the rules of law quickly and effortlessly from support materials, without ever truly understanding the case.  For this reason they will frequently inquire into the arguments the parties are advancing.  Under P argues write, "that public policy dictates that companions assist one another when assistance can be safely provided.  Further, D began assistance and did so unreasonably, breaching his duty."  Under D argues write, "that by applying ice, he had not undertaken Farwell's care.  Further, Siegrist is under no legal obligation to obtain medical assistance for Farwell."
   
    Dissent (lines 118-168): A dissent means there was a minority position that disagreed with the majority of Justices.  There will not always be a dissenting opinion.  Farwell did have a dissent.  Write, "No authority is cited to support the position that a close relationship establishes a legal duty to act.  This is the wrong case to establish such precedent.  Therefore, the general rule that Siegrist owed no duty of affirmative action to assist applies, Siegrist never assumed a duty, therefore Appeals Court properly found that no duty was owed, as a matter of law."  Clearly the dissenting judge is troubled by the fact that the court is establishing new law with no better guidance than loosely fashioned public policy.  He also feels that insufficient facts were available to conclude that Siegrist assumed any duty.

Next>>