Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Dobbs
Cramer v. Starr
Citation:375 P.3d 69 (Ariz. 2016).
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:
The Defendant, Courtney Cramer, rear-ended a car in which the Plaintiff, Tammy Munguia was a passenger. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff had disc protrusions in her lumbar spine. Months after the incident, Dr. John Ehteshami performed spinal fusion surgery on the Plaintiff to treat her injuries. However, this did not cure the injury and might have exacerbated her condition. The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant. The Defendant filed a notice naming Dr. Ehteshami as a non-party at fault.
Under Arizona’s comparative fault regime (A.R.S. § 12-2506(B)), when assessing percentages of fault in a personal injury action, the trier of fact has to consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the alleged injury. When allocating fault, the trier of fact may consider the negligence or fault of a non-party if the defendant gives notice that a non-party was either wholly or partially at fault.
Defendant argued that the trial court erred in taking the comparative fault issue from the jury by striking her notice, thus violating A.R.S. § 12-2506. The Defendant argued that the Second Restatement § 457, which the trial court relied on, does not control Arizona law and would anyway be superseded by Third Restatement § 35.
The Plaintiff argued that Arizona courts have long embraced the original tortfeasor rule (OTR) laid out in Second Restatement § 457, a rule the Plaintiff characterized as one of causation that was not displaced or abrogated by the Uniform Contribution among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), an Arizona statute. The Plaintiff argues that under the OTR, the Defendant cannot reduce or escape her liability by claiming that the harm was caused by Dr. Ehteshami. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant was independently liable for any and all enhanced harm proximately resulting from her actions and those foreseeably caused by a later tortfeasor.
- 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.