SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Prosser
Seaborne-Worsley v. Mintiens
Citation:
458 Md. 555, 183 A.3d 141Only 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:
Worsley (plaintiff) and her husband drove to a restaurant to pick up a take-out order. While Worsley’s husband retrieved the order, he left the car in a travel lane with Worsley in the passenger seat. Worsley’s car was perpendicular to Mintiens’ (defendant) parking space. Mintiens backed his truck out of the parking space and struck Worsley’s car. Worsley, the owner of the car, sued Mintiens to recover for the damage to the passenger side and for her own personal injuries. In return, Mintiens argued that plaintiff’s husband was contributorily negligent for leaving plaintiff’s car in the travel lane of the restaurant parking lot. Therefore, the negligence of Worsley’s husband should be imputed to Worsley herself since she was the owner of the vehicle. The trial court applied the doctrines of imputed negligence and contributory negligence and entered a judgment in favor of defendant. The finding of contributory negligence barred Worsley’s recovery. Worsley appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
- 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.
9m 14s
