Foster v. Preston Mill Co* - CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case Foster v Preston Mill Co SC of WA 1954 Facts(relevant if any changed the holding would

Foster v. Preston Mill Co* - CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of...

This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.

CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case : Foster v. Preston Mill Co., SC of WA 1954. Facts (relevant; if any changed, the holding would be affected; used by the court to make its decision; what happened before the lawsuit was filed): noise from blasting scared a mother mink owned by P, causing her to kill her kittens. Procedure (what happened in court after the suit was filed): Judgment for P, D appealed. Issue (the legal question being addressed; may begin with “whether”): Under the Rule of strict liability, is D liable for the mother mink killing it’s young? Holding (the court’s decision): Under the Rule of strict liability, with these facts: no the result is judgment reversed. Rationale (the court’s reasoning/justification for the holding; facts, which if they occurred again, would cause the court rule the same): Strict liability is often imposed in blasting cases. However,
Image of page 1

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read the whole page?

  • Spring '14
  • AnnMcginley
  • Law, mink, abnormally dangerous activity

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture