Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Christie
Helling v. Carey
Citation:83 Wn. 2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974)
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Barbara Helling (Plaintiff) first visited Dr. Thomas Carey and Dr. Robert Laughlin (Defendants) in 1959 concerning her eyesight. She was fitted with contact lenses but returned numerous times over the next nine years complaining about irritation in her eyes. In 1968, the Defendants conducted an eye pressure test for the first time, and discovered Plaintiff suffered from glaucoma. Plaintiff was thirty-two at this time. Plaintiff sued Defendants, alleging that their failure to conduct a pressure test was negligence resulting in her near total loss of vision. The Defendants argue that in their profession, routine eye pressure tests are not standard care for people under the age of forty.
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.
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.