Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
Peterson v. Taylor
Citation:316 N.W.2d 869 (Iowa 1982).
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:
David and his sister, Molly, are returning from a neighbor’s home after playing. The two stopped at the Taylors’ house, hoping to play with Greg, but soon discovering Greg was not home. David began gathering twigs to start a fire upon a concrete slab in the Taylors’ backyard. Initially, David attempted to use matches, which he had obtained earlier from his uncle, but was unable to start a fire. He instead went to the Taylor shed to retrieve a can of gasoline, which he used to successfully start a fire. After it went out, David went to the shed again for a second can of gasoline. There is dispute regarding how the second fire started, but it resulted in David’s pants catching on fire and him rolling on the ground in an attempt to put out the flame. David suffered serious burn injuries as a result of the fire.
During trial, Plaintiff called an expert witness who testified David was of average intellect and slightly hyperactive, making him somewhat more likely to play with fire than the average child. He further testified David probably did not know a gasoline fire could not be put out with water; however, he almost certainly did know he could get burned by playing with matches and fire,
- 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.