Torts Keyed to Goldberg
Ranney v. Parawax Co.
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.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- 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:
From 1975 to 1982, Joseph Ranney III, Plaintiff, worked for Parawax Company, Inc., Defendant. Due to Plaintiff’s work at Parawax, Plaintiff was exposed to toxic materials, and in 1985, he was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease. Over time, Plaintiff inquired from various physicians about if he received the disease due to his exposure to toxic materials. However, the doctors never definitively stated that there was a causal connection. In 1987, Plaintiff’s wife began law school. Around 1987 or 1988, Plaintiff’s wife enrolled in a class that taught the causation of occupational diseases by exposure to toxic chemicals. At this moment, Plaintiff believed that his exposure to the toxic materials at Parawax contributed to his Hodgkin’s disease. In 1991, Plaintiff asked another, new, doctor to inquire into the issue, and the doctor confirmed the causal connection. Subsequently, in 1992, Plaintiff brought a workers’ compensation claim against Parawax and its workers’ compensation carrier, American States Insurance Company. The industrial commissioner granted summary judgment to defendants based on the fact that Plaintiff’s cause of action was time barred under the two-year statute of limitations. A state district court affirmed. 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.