Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Blum
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.
Citation:69 Cal. 2d 33, 442 P.2d 641, 69 Cal. Rptr. 561 (1968)
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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 plaintiff hired defendant to remove and replace the upper metal cover of a steam turbine. Defendant agreed to perform the work “at (its) own risk and expense” and to “indemnify” plaintiff “against all loss, damage, expense and liability resulting from … injury to property, arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this contract.” The defendant got over $50,000 of insurance to cover property damage. During the work, the cover fell and damaged an exposed rotor of the turbine, causing $25,144.51 in damage. Plaintiff paid for the repairs and then brought this claim to receive those costs from the defendant on the claim that the indemnity provision covered damage to all property regardless of ownership. Defendant tried to introduce extrinsic evidence showing that the intent of the parties was to only cover the property of third parties, not the plaintiff. The lower court did not allow this evidence in and only looked to the express language of the contract.
- 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.