Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
Turnbough v. Ladner
Citation:754 So.2d 467 (Miss. 1999).
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:
Plaintiff signed up for a scuba-diving course offered by Defendant. Plaintiff had prior experience scuba diving, over a decade prior. Before starting classes, Defendant required all participants to sign express assumption of risk agreements, which Plaintiff signed before beginning classes. At the end of the six-week course, Defendant organized a dive which students were required to complete two successive dives to receive certification.
After completing both dives, Plaintiff began experiencing arthritic pain in his joints later that same day. He reached out to Defendant who directed him to a scuba hotline, which instructed him to receive medical treatment. Doctors informed Defendant, based on the depth of the dives, there should have been a longer decompression period to avoid the injuries experienced by Plaintiff. Similarly, an affidavit by expert testimony described Defendant’s coordination of the dive as “woefully inadequate” of basic industry standards to reduce decompression illness.
Plaintiff was treated for his injuries and told never to dive again.
- 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.