Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Duncan
Eckis v. Sea World Corp.
Citation:64 Cal.App.3d 1, 134 Cal.Rptr. 183 (1976)
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:
Anne Eckis (plaintiff) became a secretary for Kent Burgess, the director of animal training at Sea World Corporation (defendant), in 1970. In April 1971, Burgess asked the plaintiff to ride Shamu, a killer whale, in a bikini for publicity pictures and the plaintiff agreed. Burgess did not tell the plaintiff that Shamu had bitten riders not wearing wetsuits before and had been acting out since early March. The plaintiff was provided training during work hours. During the third ride in the photoshoot, the plaintiff fell off the whale and Shamu bit her on the hips and legs and refused to release her. The plaintiff sued Burgess and the defendant for her injuries, which included 100 to 200 stitches, permanent scars, five days in the hospital, an inability to work for several weeks, and psychological disturbance. She alleged negligence, fraud, and liability for an animal with vicious or dangerous propensities, and sought compensatory and punitive damages. She also filed a workers compensation claim pursuant to the Worker’s Compensation Act.
- 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.