Torts keyed to Best
Bradshaw v. Daniel
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:
Elmer Johns was admitted to the hospital under the care of Dr. Chalmers Daniel, Jr. (Defendant) because he was complaining of headaches, muscle aches, fever, and chills. Defendant prescribed Elmer medication to help with Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever (RMSF), which is a tick-borne disease that can be fatal if not treated early. Elmer died the next day due to the RMSF. During the course of Elmer’s treatment, Defendant had spoken to Elmer’s wife, Genevieve, but he never indicated to her the risks of exposure to RMSF or the fact that it was likely the cause of Elmer’s death. After a week passed, Genevieve came to the hospital for treatment because she was experiencing similar symptoms to what her husband experienced. She died after three days. Genevieve’s son, William Bradshaw (Plaintiff), subsequently sued Dr. Daniel for failing to advise his mom of the risk of exposure to RMSF. Two experts were deposed and testified that family members have a greater risk of contracting the disease from other family members who are suffering from the disease. Dr. Daniel’s filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. However, the trial court granted an interlocutory appeal on the issue of a doctor’s duty to warn family members of a disease that is non-contagious. After the court of appeals held that the facts were not sufficient to show that the risk to Plaintiff’s mom was such that a legal duty arose on Defendant’s part, Plaintiff appealed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- 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.