SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Prosser
Friedman v. General Motors Corp.
Citation:
43 Ohio St.2d 209, 72 Ohio Ops.2d 119, 331 N.E.2d 702Only 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:
Morton Friedman (plaintiff) was waiting in line in his 1966 Oldsmobile car to purchase gas. He turned his engine off while he waited. When it was his turn, Friedman turned the ignition key on the car while it in the “drive” position. The Oldsmobile leaped forward. Friedman was startled by the car’s sudden movement. He was unable to regain control of the car before it “ran wild” and crashed. Friedman and three members of his family were injured as a result. Friedman sued the car’s manufacturer, General Motors Corporation (“General Motors”) (defendant). Friedman alleged that the car he purchased from General Motors was defective. General Motors argued that the car’s start switch was not defective. Instead, General Motors contended that the car was in “neutral” when the ignition was switched, that Friedman shifted to “drive,” and that Friedman must have hit the accelerator rather than the brake. At trial, the judge granted General Motors’ motion for a directed verdict because Friedman did not prove that the car was defective when it left the factory. The intermediate appellate court reversed the trial judge’s decision. General Motors appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
- 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.
11m 7s
