Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
Trahan-Laroche v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc.
Citation:657 A.2d 417 (N.H. 1995)
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:
Patrick Maimone was employed by Lockheed Sanders as a maintenance mechanic. Part of Maimone’s job was to hay the fields at Lockheed Sanders’s facilities. As part of his employment, Maimone provided the haying equipment, and in return was allowed to keep any hay that he removed from the fields.
After haying one of Lockheed Sanders’ facilities, Maimone was driving toward a store in order to sell the excess hay when his trailer separated from his truck, colliding with Rita Trahan-Loche and Lucien Loroche’s car. Trahan-Laroche and Laroche sued Lockheed Sanders under the concept of negligent supervision and respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment for Lockheed Sanders, finding that Maimone was not acting in the scope of his employment when the plaintiffs’ injury occurred. The plaintiffs appealed, claiming that Maimone’s personal use of the trailer was part of the agreement between Lockheed Sanders and Maimone, and therefore incidental to Maimone’s employment.
- 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.