Contracts Keyed to Jimenez
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
In 1960, G.W. Thomas Drayage and Rigging Co. (Thomas) (defendant) went into an agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) to give work and equipment important to remove and replace the upper cover for PG&E’s steam turbine. Thomas consented to play out the work at its own risk and expense and to repay PG&E for any “loss, damage, expense and liability resulting from injury to property” or any other demonstration related to the execution of the agreement. During execution, the cover fell and damages some portion of the exposed rotor of PG&E’s turbine. PG&E sued to recover $25,144.51 in damages. The trial court granted judgment for PG&E because Thomas’ indemnity provision shielded PG&E from damage to its own property. The trial court concluded that the “plain meaning” of the indemnity provision in Thomas’ agreement was to allow indemnification of damage to PG&E’s property notwithstanding the property of third parties. The trial court admitted no extraneous proof on this issue. Thomas appealed, contending that that extraneous proof ought to be allowable to demonstrate that the “plain meaning” of the indemnity clause was that it should just apply to damage to the property of third parties, not PG&E.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.