Case Briefing - Hamline Universitylaw.hamline.edu/files/Steve Swanson 2009 Orientation...

Case BriefingSteve SwansonAugust 2009

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Who am I?

Admiralty

International Law

International Civil Litigation

Comparative Law

National Security Law

Torts


Why do I give this lecture?

Good question.


Why do case briefing?

•Tool Only•Prepare for Class•Forces you to read the case•Learn rigorous case analysis•Start exam preparation


Problems with case briefing

•You read the brief to the class when the professor asks you a question.

•You put too much information in the brief.

•Your brief looks nothing like what the professor wants to discuss. Why?


Professor is nuts!


You read the wrong case!


You just didn’t get it!


Professor might be making a point you just don’t understand yet….


How to read a case:

•Read it the first time without taking any notes. Think about your gut reaction to the case. Does it make sense?

•Second Time Through: Write your brief.•Third time: Is your brief correct and does it capture the essence of the case?


Admiralty Law• Navigable waters of the

United States and High Seas;

• Uniform, predictable, simple;

• Create a workable maritime industry for the US; and

• Protect workers from maritime injuries.


Personal Injury Law for Sailors

•Maintenance and Cure•Jones Act Negligence•Unseaworthiness


Case brief for the Boudoin case


Case name, court, and date


• Boudoin v. Lykes Brothers SS (US 1955), p. 1


Facts• Only those facts that

are necessary to the discussion of the issues in the case. Do we really care that plaintiff worked in the engine room as an oiler?


Bad example• Plaintiff was employed in the engine department as an oiler. The ship had a deck maintenance man, named Manuel Gonzales. Plaintiff's

injury was inflicted by Gonzales, who, during the course of a night's drinking party, went to plaintiff's room and took a bottle of brandy from under plaintiff's bed. Plaintiff awoke, startled; and Gonzales attacked him with the bottle, causing severe injuries.

• The assault by Gonzales on plaintiff occurred in the early morning of November 25, 1949. This happened during the course of a drinking party on board in which much liquor was consumed, Gonzales drinking nearly a fifth. Gonzales was, indeed, drunk when he assaulted plaintiff. The evidence is disputed; but the District Court found that shortly after Gonzales struck plaintiff with the bottle, he returned with a large knife which he also intended to use on him. When plaintiff was taken to the ship's hospital, Gonzales created a disturbance outside -- threatening the mate, trying to enter the sick bay, and offering to give blood to plaintiff for a transfusion. Those events followed on the heels of the assault.

About six hours after the assault, Gonzales was ordered to the master's cabin, where he refused to make any statement about the assault. Later he was ordered to clean the ship's hospital. Instead of doing that, he left the ship against orders. Early in the afternoon, Gonzales returned to the ship with bottles of liquor, at which time the captain apprehended him, took the bottles away, and placed him in irons -- a step which the captain testified he seldom used.

The next day, November 26, Gonzales left the vessel without leave and did not return until the morning of November 28, when he was logged for disobedience of orders and fined for being absent without leave. On return of the Mason Lykes to the United States, Gonzales was discharged by the captain, though, since that time, he has served on respondent's vessels.

• This is a suit by an American seaman against the owner and operator of an ocean freighter, the Mason Lykes, on which he was formerly employed. He based his claim for recovery both on negligence and on breach of the warranty of seaworthiness. The case was tried by the [*337] court upon waiver of jury. The District Court found for the plaintiff, holding that the shipowner breached its warranty of seaworthiness and that its officers were negligent. 112 F.Supp. 177. The Court of Appeals reversed, 211 F.2d 618. We granted certiorari to resolve a seeming conflict between that opinion and Keen v. Overseas Tankship Corp., 194 F.2d 515, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=79c5da1130915e0dcd09b44fc3aee0ba&_xfercite=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b348%2520U.S.%2520336%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=19&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b112%2520F.%2520Supp.%2520177%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAk&_md5=a26ceea8242129ece1224b609b606993

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=79c5da1130915e0dcd09b44fc3aee0ba&_xfercite=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b348%2520U.S.%2520336%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=19&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b112%2520F.%2520Supp.%2520177%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAk&_md5=a26ceea8242129ece1224b609b606993

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=79c5da1130915e0dcd09b44fc3aee0ba&_xfercite=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b348%2520U.S.%2520336%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=20&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b211%2520F.2d%2520618%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAk&_md5=8658a2dfab7ecf0242af78055cb27fd9

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=79c5da1130915e0dcd09b44fc3aee0ba&_xfercite=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b348%2520U.S.%2520336%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=20&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b211%2520F.2d%2520618%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAk&_md5=8658a2dfab7ecf0242af78055cb27fd9

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=79c5da1130915e0dcd09b44fc3aee0ba&_xfercite=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b348%2520U.S.%2520336%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=21&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b194%2520F.2d%2520515%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAk&_md5=55e612f99168adcabd81b73fe4c63b03

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=79c5da1130915e0dcd09b44fc3aee0ba&_xfercite=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b348%2520U.S.%2520336%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=21&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%253ccite%2520cc%253d%2522USA%2522%253e%253c%2521%255bCDATA%255b194%2520F.2d%2520515%255d%255d%253e%253c%252fcite%253e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAk&_md5=55e612f99168adcabd81b73fe4c63b03

Better• Onboard the Mason Lykes, Gonzales, an employee of defendant Lykes, became

drunk and attacked another employee, plaintiff Boudoin, with a bottle causing personal injuries. Subsequently, Gonzales made two additional attempts to attack plaintiff and against orders left the ship. When he returned to the ship with additional alcohol, the captain placed him in irons.

• Plaintiff is suing Lykes for negligence and unseaworthiness.• Trial court judge found for plaintiff. Reversed by the Court of Appeals. Certiorari

granted by the S. Ct. to resolve a circuit split.


Issue

•Mix of relevant facts and law that clearly frame the issue before the court.


Bad

•Is Lykes liable for unseaworthiness?•Should Boudoin prevail?•What is unseaworthiness?


Better•Can a vessel owner be held liable for personal injuries for unseaworthiness when a savage member of the crew becomes drunk and attacks another crewmember?

•Answer: yes•Possible negligence issue? Not really discussed.


Holding•A vessel owner can be held liable for personal injuries for unseaworthiness when a savage member of the crew becomes drunk and attacks another crewmember.


Reasoning

•Why the court decided the case the way it did.


Bad•Vessel is responsible for people drinking on the vessel.

•Gonzales was a bad dude.•Owner was negligent in failing to provide a safe workplace.


Better• Unseaworthiness is a strict liability remedy.• It requires that the owner provide a vessel that is reasonably fit for its

purpose.• Same rule should apply to gear and personnel.• Gonzales was of such a savage disposition as to endanger others

working on the ship…not competent to meet the contingencies of the voyage. Gonzales need not be a maniac—the issue is whether Gonzales was equal in disposition to the ordinary sailor. The district court (the fact finder) had sufficient evidence to justify its holding that the vessel was unseaworthy.

• Normal drinking by sailors would not be covered. One can expect that sailors will get drunk and brawl, but this situation went beyond that.

• Court does not really explain why there should be such a remedy at all.


Rules•Legal rules that you get out of the case.

• Vessel owner is strictly liable for personal injury caused by unseaworthiness of the vessel.

• Unseaworthiness requires that owner provide a vessel that is reasonably fit for its purpose in its gear and its personnel.

• Crew members’ disposition must equal those of ordinary sailors.


Questions I would be likely to want to explore in the class

Why an unseaworthiness remedy for sailors when there is no similar remedy for land workers?

Shouldn’t you have to show some fault on the part of the ship-owner? Would the ship have failed a negligence test? How?

Why is some drunken brawling OK?

Why is this case in the Supreme Court?

How does this remedy fit in with the others that we have discussed?


Desperation measures

• Always go to class….even if you are not well prepared.

• If you lack time to brief the cases well, consider book briefing…fail with dignity approach.

• If you really have not read the case, don’t try to fake it. Confess that you are not prepared, but expect to get called on the next class and maybe the one after that. Don’t do this often. It’s not good for you, and it’s definitely not good for the class. Remember that if you are not prepared one of your buddies will have to take it.


After Class

•Summarize what happened in the class.•Start your outline.


Case Briefing - Hamline Universitylaw.hamline.edu/files/Steve Swanson 2009 Orientation...

Documents

Transcript of Case Briefing - Hamline Universitylaw.hamline.edu/files/Steve Swanson 2009 Orientation...