Torts Keyed to Goldberg
Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council
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 1987, a boat and trailer were abandoned on the grounds that were occupied by the Council for the London Borough of Sutton, Defendant. Both the boat and trailer were left open in an area where children would play in. The boat and the trailer rotted and deteriorated. In December 1988, Defendant placed a sticker on the boat thatprovided notice to the public that the boat was dangerous, should not be touched, and would be removed from the premises within seven days. Nonetheless, the boat and trailer were not removed. Justin Jolley, Plaintiff, and Karl Warnhamsaw the boat in the summer of 1989. Later, in February 1990, Plaintiff and Warnham chose to repair and paint the boat so that they could use it for themselves.At that time, Plaintiff was 14. Using tools, Plaintiff and Warnhampicked the boat up so they could work underneath it. For a few months, Plaintiff and Warnhamtried to fix holes in the hull. Thereafter, on April 8, 1990, Jolley, while working underneath the boat, the boat fell on him, causing him to break his back, which cause him to be paraplegic. The boat did not fall due to its condition, but because the boat fell from the tools that Plaintiff and Warnharm had used to pick it up. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant, and the judge found in Plaintiff’s favor, but reduced his damages by 25 percent for contributory negligence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed on the grounds that it was only foreseeable that the derelict condition of the boat would cause minor injury to children playing on it. Plaintiff appealed.
- 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.