Guidelines for completing the case study
Read the case carefully and determine the specific relevant legal issue before starting to write your analysis of the case. The facts are critical to analyzing the questions asked
Map out answer to the case or how you plan to approach your case. Often there will be multiple parties or factors involved in the case. You are required to address when you analysze the case. Having a sense of how many different points you need to address will help you to develop and carefully plan your response.
Also, remember that some cases may have multiple parties involved. Exam each party carefully and discuss whether and how the specific area of law applies to the party.
Here is how you should approach your case study
Thesis: A brief summary of the case and what area(s) of law is (are) pertinent to the case. What is the case all about-what area of law (e.g. the case relates to the area of tort specifically nuisance, does it relate to contract law, property law, employment law).
This should be no more than one or two paragraphs (3-5 complete sentences for each paragraph) for the summary of the facts. Then about one or two sentences as to what area(s) of law (is) are applicable to the case.
Rule: What principles must be upheld or present in the case (for example in order for a case to be determined as negligence, four principles must exists). You will need to discuss the case around these principles). Therefore, what are these principles? This should be no more than two paragraphs (each paragraph should be no longer than eight sentences).
Explanation: Explain each of the relevant principles that exists. See above RULE
Analysis: Analyze the case, looking at both sides of the coin (position of both defendant and plaintiff) and what you see as the stronger points that would support each side. Use cases (from your text or that you have researched) where applicable to demonstrate your point. Look for the specific aspect of the cases that relates to your point when citing the case. Indicate how each principle relates to the case by finding facts from the case to illustrate.
Here is an abbreviated example of a case analysis submitted by another student. Note it is not in-depth, but rather a modification of the actual analysis that was submitted.
After the Thesis, rules and explanation below is the case analysis part of the assignment. Note that I removed the cases mentioned in the case except for the one we discussed in class
Karen was negligent when she was speeding and hit Marti’s car. Karen owed a duty of care to anyone using the road-whether it is a pedestrian or another motorists. Other users of the road are within the area that the law would place within the scope or area of foreseeability. Those within in this scope or area of foreseeability are likely to be hurt by Karen’s actions as a motorist. In x case (1978), the two parties involved were held liable as it was found that they owed a duty of care to those who came into their restaurant and used the services of the restaurant as patrons. The negligent action of T and G resulted in B getting sick. Had he not eaten the food prepared by T and G it is unlikely he would have gotten sick. From the case, it was foreseeable that such actions could result in someone getting sick who ate the prepared food. Because of this foreseeability, the law will hold that Karen owes a duty of care to Marti as another user of the road.
Karen breached that duty of care. She breached that duty of care when she decided to drive her car at a high rate of speed in a congested area such as Tyson’s corner. In the case of x v y (1993), the manufacturer of a car was held liable for the poor design of the car, which exploded on impact in an accident. The courts held that the manufacturer had breached their duty of care, through the poor design of the car’s brake system. A properly designed braking system would not have resulted in the car careening out of control. In this case, Karen’s breach of the duty of care was further exacerbated when she ran the red light. By breaching that duty of care, Karen’s action caused harm to Marti. Utilizing the reasonable man standards, one can conclude that any responsible person, driving a car in a congested area such as Tyson corner would know that driving at an excessive speed, (Karen drove at a rate of 80 miles an hour) and running a red light could result in an accident. As the law states that it was “foreseeable” that an accident could occur and someone could be hurt or a fatality could result. A reasonable person would not drive at such a high rate of speed in busy area it is foreseeable that an accident could occur and that someone could be hurt.
Marti was standing by the corner of the road that Karen was speeding. The chain of events started by Karen was a direct result of Marti’s injuries and his subsequent death. As stated before it was foreseeable that Karen’s speeding could result in injury of another road user. The chain of events that were put in motion and resulted in his injuries and later his death, are a direct result of Karen actions. Had she not been speeding and ran the red light, it is very likely that Marti would not have been injured. It is clear there is a direct correlation between her speeding, running the red light and later losing control of her sports car. When she lost control of her car, it was then she slammed into Marti and that her speeding and running the red light.
Even though Karen caused the accident, she is not responsible for Mr. Magoo’s death since a reasonable person would not have foreseen that such an accident would have affected someone a block away. His injuries are too remote to be attributed to Karen’s action-despite the fact that she was negligence. In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, Mrs. Palsgraf injuries were considered too remote and LIRR employees’ action were not a direct cause of her injuries. It was not foreseeable that the other passenger’s brief case would have contained fireworks and that they would have exploded. What was foreseeable was that this passenger could have been hurt while attempted to board a moving train-but not Mrs. Palsgraf who was standing on the platform.
Make sure that you have referenced the case and year, as I will be checking to verify the accuracy. To merely cite the case is not enough you must indicate what about that case is parallel or supports your case.
Thesis: Your final conclusion and your thoughts about the case and the merits and demerits that exist for both sides
How you will be graded
I will be looking for your ability with in your TREAT+ format to
- Identify the legal issue(s) raised by the specific facts
- Identify which issues are in dispute and which are unambiguous
- Confine your analysis to the specific issue(s) raised and the legal factors that support it. Do not rambling into what your opinion is but rather what the law is
- Show your knowledge of legal principles and “rules”-VERY IMPORTANT
- Apply relevant legal principles and “rules” to factual situations; and
- Present your responses in a concise, precise and organized way
| Points | |
| Summary | 15 |
| Thesis | 20 |
| Rule | 15 |
| Explanation | 15 |
| Case analysis | 25 |
| Grammar | 10 |
| Spelling, punctuation | 10 |
| Total | 110 points |
- Your case study should no less than three pages but no more than four pages single space.
- Your font should be Times New Roman font size 12,
- Margins: Top and Bottom 1” and Left and Right 1”
- Your cover sheet should include your name, the course name and course number. Please include a header with your name and the case responding to
- Please number all pages