Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of Utah
Citation:853 P.2d 877 (Utah 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:
Kenneth Sullivan lost his left arm and left leg in an accident while working for the Scoular parties. Sullivan, who was tasked with unloading grain from rail cars into warehouses, sued several parties in federal court for personal injuries, including: the Scoular Parties; Union Pacific Railroad Company; Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company; Union Short Line Railroad Company; Utah Power & Light Company; Trackmobile, Inc.; and G.W. Van Keppel Company.
The district court dismissed the Scoular parties from the suit, as they were immune from Sullivan’s claim under the exclusive remedy provision of Utah’s Workers Compensation Law. The court then dismissed Denver & Rio Grnade Western Railroad from the suit, as it found the company owed no duty to Sullivan.
Defendant Truckmaster moved to have the jury apportion fault between all of the original defendants, including those dismissed from the suit. Sullivan contested the motion. The district court petitioned the Utah Supreme Court to rule on the issue.
- 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.