Torts Keyed to Goldberg
Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp.
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:
Pyrodyne Corporation, Defendant, was selected to be the one to set off a public fireworks display at a Washington state fairgrounds on July 4, 1987. Defendant was subject to numerous regulations. One in particular was a requirement that Defendant obtain a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy. During the event, a mortar fired its shell from a horizontal position and it exploded near a crowd of spectators. Danny and Marion Klein (collectively Plaintiffs) were injured. Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant in state court for products liability and strict liability. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants employees had improperly set up the fireworks display and that other regulations had also been violated. Defendant contended that the misfire was caused by the manufacturer negligence. Nonetheless, because all the fireworks exploded, there was no conclusive evidence or way of determining the cause of the misfire. Both parties motioned for summary judgment. The trial court ruled against Plaintiff on the issue of product liability, but held that Defendant was strictly liable. Defendant 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.