Every year Camp Kid holds a hike to the top of Spaghetti Mountain or to the top of Wise Hill. Of the two hikes, the one up Spaghetti Mountain is a bit more strenuous, but either can be accomplished in under an hour. This past year the campers, who ranged in age from seven to twelve, voted to hike up Spaghetti Mountain. The fifty campers and two adult camp counselors made it to the top of the hill one sunny afternoon in July within half an hour without any issues. On the way back down, however, eight year old Cameron became distracted by a snake and tripped over a large moss covered log lying across the path. As the result of the fall, he suffered a broken leg. His parents, the Webbers, now want to know whether they can successful sue the camp for Cameron’s injury under a theory of negligence. Please evaluate their claim based on Sauer and Greaves. You will brief both of these cases as assignments in class.
Prior to writing your analysis, first think about how we would argue that Cameron’s situation is analogous to Greaves and distinguishable from Sauer. Second, think about how the attorney representing Camp Kid would argue the opposite. You may want to develop a chart (see attached) in which you outline the facts of each situation to help you see the differences and similarities among your client’s facts, the facts in Sauer, and the facts in Greaves.
It is also important that you understand the policy reasons behind the court’s decisions. While your arguments should be based on the factual similarities and differences between our cases and Sauer and Greaves, a mere listing of the factual similarities and differences in not enough for a thorough legal analysis. Instead, you must tell me WHY you think those similarities and differences matter.
Here is a suggested format to follow:
1. Your opening paragraph should consist of the road map paragraph as you did for Assignment One. In the road map paragraph, state the issues you will be discussing. In stating the issues, remember an issue consists of a rule and the specific facts that make the outcome problematical. In other words, be sure to tell me enough about the law and the facts so I will know why your issues are issues.
2. Follow that by the relevant facts as listed above.
3. Use the IRAC method to write out your analysis. Your issue is whether Camp Kid breached its duty when it failed to prevent Cameron from suffering foreseeable harm. Your rule comes from the cases of Greaves and Sauer. So that the reader can understand the rule, you must discuss both cases in this format: 1) Hook; 2) Trigger Facts; Holding; 4) Reasoning. After discussing both cases, you move to your application. Start with Greaves and discuss how Greaves’s facts are similar to Cameron’s facts. Then (from the standpoint of the defendant) discuss any factual differences. Move onto Sauer similarities and Sauer differences. As I stated above, you need to go beyond listing those factual similarities and differences. Tell me, based on the court’s reasoning, WHY you think those factual similarities and differences matter.
4. State in your conclusion as to which side has the better argument and why. Feel free to make any recommendations for further research.
5. Read and EDIT your answer for spelling and grammatical errors. Ask yourself—Do I know what I am trying to say; will the reader know what I am trying to say? If the answer is no or maybe, figure out how to say it more clearly.
6. Your brief for Sauer is due on 11-20. Your brief for Greaves is due 11-26.
7. Please turn in your finished paper on 12-09 This assignment is worth 30 points of your final grade.
Case Analysis Chart
Name of Case: Sauer
Facts that are Similar to Your Case
Facts that are Different to Your Case Rule of Law and Conclusion
Case Analysis Chart
Name of Case: Greaves
Facts that are Similar to Your Case
Facts that are Different to Your Case Rule of Law and Conclusion
Authority Facts Rule and Outcome Present Case
Case One
Case Two
Assignment #2 Format
To: Professor
From: (Your Name)
Re: Cameron Webber v. Camp Kid
[Please note that I am not requiring you to do Question Presented and Brief Answers but in other classes and in real life, you will need to do these things.]
Road Map Paragraph
(Discuss purpose of paper and what you are being asked to resolve)
Statement of Facts
(Include only relevant facts necessary to understand the problem, but you should make sure facts you include in your factual comparison below are also included here).
Discussion
Part One:
First, focus on your client’s argument. If Camp Kid is liable:
Camp Kid breached its duty when failed to take preventive measures to keep campers, including Cameron, safe from foreseeable harm.
Analogous to Greaves (state law in case, a little bit about case and then compare to your client’s facts). Hence, you will be using the IRAC format. Issue (can Camp Kid be held liable). Rule (from case). Analysis is the discussion of case and comparison—see below the points you want to cover below. Then Conclude before moving on to Part Two
Issues to be discussed include:
Added needlessly to danger
Picked mountain over hill/spot next to pool
Lack of supervision
How distinguishable from Sauer
Climbing a mountain/water game = abnormal v. normal activity
Part Two:
Camp Kid’s Argument
How they would argue analogous to Sauer (use same format as discussed above—IRAC)
Normal activity
Inevitable risks of the sport/to eliminate risks, have to eliminate sport
Water games create wet grass/hiking creates dangers of tripping
Distinguishable from Greaves
Camp added water to grass/nature put log there
Conclusion
(Include final recommendation—should we go forward with case and what additional information we need to find out/research).