m******a
发帖数: 1639 | 1 I need to brief the case: Frances A. McLaughlin, an Infant, by Her Guardian
ad Litem, Francis Mclaughlin, et al., Respondents, v. Mine Safety Appliances
Company, Appellant. Any idea what the issue is?案情：一个六岁的女孩溺水后被
救时被使用了由被告出售的一种“heat block”, 然后这个女孩被烧伤，sue这个公司
。trial court and appelate devision find for the plantiff, 但是被告再次上诉
后，高院verdict for the defendant, 原因是在救这个女孩时，有个fireman知道不应
该直接将这种"heat block"接触女孩的皮肤，但是却没有告诉给这个女孩用“heat
block”的护士，导致了烧伤。高院认为：in such a case the intervening
negligence of the immediate vendee does not necessarily insulate the
manufacturer from liability to third persons, nor supersede the neglience of
the manufacturer in failing to warn of the danger. 并且在最后说明：we have
indicated that knowlede of the danger possessed by the original purchaser,
knowledge actually brought home to him, might protect the manufacturer or
distributor from liability to third persons harmed by the failure of the
purchaser to warn, where the purchaser had the means and opportunity to do
so. Here, the jury might have found that the fireman not only had the means
to warn the nurse, but further that, by his actions, he prevented any
warning from reaching her, and, indeed, that he actually had some part in
the improper application of the blocks, such conduct could not have been
foreseen by the defendant.
第一次写，明天就要交，请指点issue, 谢谢！ | i****y
发帖数: 5184 | 2 Isn't this a brief?
How much more brief do you want it?
Guardian
Appliances
of
【在 m******a 的大作中提到】
: I need to brief the case: Frances A. McLaughlin, an Infant, by Her Guardian
: ad Litem, Francis Mclaughlin, et al., Respondents, v. Mine Safety Appliances
: Company, Appellant. Any idea what the issue is?案情：一个六岁的女孩溺水后被
: 救时被使用了由被告出售的一种“heat block”, 然后这个女孩被烧伤，sue这个公司
: 。trial court and appelate devision find for the plantiff, 但是被告再次上诉
: 后，高院verdict for the defendant, 原因是在救这个女孩时，有个fireman知道不应
: 该直接将这种"heat block"接触女孩的皮肤，但是却没有告诉给这个女孩用“heat
: block”的护士，导致了烧伤。高院认为：in such a case the intervening
: negligence of the immediate vendee does not necessarily insulate the
: manufacturer from liability to third persons, nor supersede the neglience of
| m******a
发帖数: 1639 | 3 our instructor told us that there are five parts in a brief:
1. facts
2. issue
3. procedural history
4. ruling
5. rational
I basically know the fact, the procedural history, the ruling, but couldn't
figure out the issue and rational......
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
: Isn't this a brief?
: How much more brief do you want it?
:
: Guardian
: Appliances
: of
| a**********m
发帖数: 2098 | 4 这玩意不都是自己用的吗？从来没碰到过教授要把case brief当作业交的。。。
建议你用westlaw或者lexis查一下，每个case的最前面都有他们各家自己总结的case b
rief。
t
【在 m******a 的大作中提到】
: our instructor told us that there are five parts in a brief:
: 1. facts
: 2. issue
: 3. procedural history
: 4. ruling
: 5. rational
: I basically know the fact, the procedural history, the ruling, but couldn't
: figure out the issue and rational......
| o*********s
发帖数: 275 | 5 This is probably 1L Torts.
Haven't read the case, but based on the little bit of info you provided, the
issue seems to be: whether the failure to warn a third party by the
original purchaser, who had the knowledge, means and opportunity to do so,
should shield the manufacturer or distributor from liability to the third
party harmed by the product.
Court's answer is yes.
Not sure about the rationale because that will depend on the entire case.
My guess is that the proximate causation element between the product and the
injury cannot be properly established due to the negligence on the part of
the fireman. | m******a
发帖数: 1639 | 6 不好意思，我们现在学的是皮毛的东西，还没有深入的讲
b
【在 a**********m 的大作中提到】
: 这玩意不都是自己用的吗？从来没碰到过教授要把case brief当作业交的。。。
: 建议你用westlaw或者lexis查一下，每个case的最前面都有他们各家自己总结的case b
: rief。
:
: t
| m******a
发帖数: 1639 | 7 Thank you very much! very helpful.
the
the
of
【在 o*********s 的大作中提到】
: This is probably 1L Torts.
: Haven't read the case, but based on the little bit of info you provided, the
: issue seems to be: whether the failure to warn a third party by the
: original purchaser, who had the knowledge, means and opportunity to do so,
: should shield the manufacturer or distributor from liability to the third
: party harmed by the product.
: Court's answer is yes.
: Not sure about the rationale because that will depend on the entire case.
: My guess is that the proximate causation element between the product and the
: injury cannot be properly established due to the negligence on the part of
|
|
