Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
Seibert v. Vic Regnier Builders, Inc.
Citation:253 Kan. 540, 856 P.2d 1332 (1993)
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:
Betsy Seibert and her friend, Michelle Brandes, drove to the Ranch Mart Shopping Center one evening in Brandes’s Corvette. Getting out of the car in the shopping center’s underground parking garage, the two women were held up at gunpoint by unknown assailants. There was conflicting evidence about what happened next, but Seibert claimed that she dropped a can of cola during the hold up, leading to one of the assailants shooting her.
Seibert sued Vic Regnier Builders, Inc., the owner of the shopping center, for negligently failing to protect its customers. Seibert claimed that the defendant owed a duty to protect its patrons, because of both evidence of past crimes in the above-ground part of the parking area and the dimly-lit nature of the parking garage. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, applying the “prior similar incidents rule“, which established a business’s duty to protect patrons only when violent crime has occurred in the same location that would lead the business to reasonably foresee that crime happening again. In denying the plaintiff’s claim, the court ruled that the past crimes in the above-ground parking areas of the parking lot were too loosely-tied to the crime to impose a duty to protect on the defendant. Seibert appealed, arguing that a “totality of the circumstances” test should apply to the present 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.
- 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.