Torts keyed to Robertson
Blatz v. Allina Health System
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:
Plaintiff called 911 one morning after she woke up and with a pain in her chest and also had pain when she breathed. 911 notified both the police and an ambulance service, which was owned by the defendant. When the police arrived, they began to attempt to perform CPR, but the ambulance service got lost and by the time they arrived the plaintiff was no longer breathing, which caused a 4-week coma. The plaintiff had a heart attack, which ultimately cause permanent mental and physical disabilities. The plaintiff sued for negligence arguing that but for the defendant getting lost, she would not have suffered these disabilities. An expert called by the plaintiff testified that the window of 2-5 minutes that the defendant was delayed was a crucial period and the plaintiff would not have suffered the brain damage if the defendant had not been late. However, the defendant’s expert testified that the damage occurred even before the police arrived, and it would have made no difference if they were late or not. The trial court instructed the jury to attempt and separate what damage was caused by the defendants delay and what damages were only caused by the heart attack. The trial court also instructed the jury that if they were unable to discern how to allocate damages, that the defendant should then be liable for all damages. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff for all damages, and the 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.