Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Duncan
Malcolm v. Evenflo Co., Inc.
Citation:217 P.3d 514 (Mont. 2009)
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:
Chad and Jessica Malcolm (plaintiffs) filed a strict products liability claim against Evenflo Company, Inc. (defendant), alleging that their On My Way child safety seat contained a design defect that led to the death of their four month old during a car accident. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the open-ended belt hook design and lack of expanded polystyrene padding allowed the seat belt to slip out of the hook and eject the safety seat from the vehicle during the accident. Upon receiving the seat from a friend, the plaintiffs had called and been assured by the defendant that the seat model 207 was safe, claiming that this model had passed the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) test. The plaintiffs filed a motion in limine to exclude the evidence of the FMVSS, but did present evidence at trial that the defendant’s seat model 206 had been recalled and experienced test failures.
- 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.