BRIEF THIS CASE. INSTRUCTIONS AND STRUCTURE OF THE ASSIGMENT ARE IN THE PDF’ BELOW AS WELL AS THE CASE 

Briefing a Case

One of the fundamental skills in legal research is briefing a case. This technique is very helpful for highlighting the important facts of the case and also understanding how the courts apply the relevant laws to the facts of a case to come up with their rulings. When your briefing a case, you’re basically summarizing the case but you’re pulling out the most relevant information. There are many different ways to brief a case but the most popular way is the FIRAC method. This is a widely accepted method for briefing cases and it’s the method I used throughout law school. FIRAC stands for Facts, Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. I’ll go through and discuss each step in the FIRAC method. The first case brief is due next week. Since for most, if not all of you this is your first attempt at briefing a case, this will not be graded as harshly as the others. Once you submit your briefs I will post an example of how a case should be briefed and also provide you with feedback so that you can understand how the other cases should be briefed.

The first letter in the FIRAC method stands for Issue.

Facts: These are the most important facts of the case; they should include the parties involved, what happened and how the case go to this point

Issue: This is the question presented for the court to answer. This will usually be a question about how the law is/was applied to the case and whether it was done correctly

Rule: This is the relevant rule of law that the court uses to answer the questions in the case

Analysis: In this section of the brief you will explain how the applied the law and reached its decision in the case

Conclusion: How the court answered the question in the issue and how the court ruled in the case

Case Citation (Case names should be in Italics; ex. John v. Doe 123 F.3d 456 ( 1st Cir. 2016))

Facts:

These are the most important facts of the case; they should include the parties involved, what happened and how the case got to this point (the procedural history: who’s suing who? What happened in the lower court? Who is appealing?)

Issue:

This is the question presented for the court to answer. This will usually be a question about how the law is/was applied to the case and whether it was done correctly This should be in the form of a question. In many cases the issue will also correspond with why a person is appealing

Rule:

This explains how the court should apply the relevant rule of law. This does NOT mean the ruling in the case. This section should explain how the court is supposed to apply the law to answer the question in the issue

Analysis:

In this section of the brief you will explain how the applied the law and reached its decision in the case. This should connect the rule of law explained in the previous section to the facts of the case.

Conclusion:

How the court answered the question in the issue and how the court ruled in the case

*Each section should be written in single-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font. There should only be one space between the case citation and each of the sections. DO NOT include the date, class, my name or your name. Failure to follow these instructions will result in point deductions on your grade.

  1
 

TEAM MASCOT ANTICS NOT ASSUMED SPECTATOR RISK

LOWE v. CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL

FOURTH DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
July 1, 1997

In this case, plaintiff John Lowe was seriously injured when struck on the left side of his face by
a foul ball while attending a professional baseball game. The facts of the case were as follows:

On July 26, 1994, at approximately 7:05 p.m., Lowe was in attendance at a
baseball game between the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes and the San Bernardino
Spirit. The game was being played at “The Epicenter,” home field of the Rancho
Cucamonga Quakes, Class “A,” minor league baseball team. The Quakes, at their
home games, feature a mascot who goes by the name of “Tremor.” He is a
caricature of a dinosaur, standing seven feet tall with a tail which protrudes out
from the costume… ���

Lowe had been to the Epicenter on at least two previous occasions. Lowe had
witnessed foul balls being hit into the stands on many occasions. Lowe had
personally witnessed at least one fan being struck by a foul ball. Lowe did not
request a protected seat. The Epicenter did have protected seats… The
Epicenter stadium has approximately 2500 seats which are protected by
screens. ���[A]fter the seventh inning, “Tremor” the Quake’s mascot, came up into
the stadium in the area where Lowe and his group were seated. Tremor was
accompanied by an usher as he performed antics and entertained the crowd…

As John Lowe sat in his assigned seat, he was facing forward and looking toward
the playing field when suddenly, and without warning or his consent, his right
shoulder was touched by the tail of Tremor’s costume. As he turned to his right to
see who, or what, was touching him, baseball play had resumed and a batted ball,
believed to be a foul ball, hit Lowe on the left side of his face breaking multiple
facial bones. ���

Lowe sued the defendant California League of Professional Baseball and Valley Baseball Club,
Inc., (CLPB) which does business as the Quakes. The trial court granted summary judgment in
favor of CLPB. In the opinion of the trial court, Lowe’s claim was barred by the doctrine of
primary assumption of the risk. Specifically, the trial court found the Quakes owed no legal duty
to Lowe, as a spectator, to protect him from foul balls. In so doing, the trial court cited the
following general legal principle: “Where a spectator at a ball game has chosen not to sit in a
screened area, that person assumes the risk of being hit by a foul ball.” Lowe appealed.

As noted by the appeals court, “a defendant generally has no duty to eliminate, or protect a
plaintiff from risks inherent to the sport itself, but has only a duty not to increase those
risks.”

  2
 

[I]t is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care
not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.
The rule is no different in instances involving spectators. ���

Therefore, under the circumstances of this particular case, CLPB “had a duty not to increase
the inherent risks to which spectators at professional baseball games are regularly exposed
and which they assume.” Accordingly, the specific issue was, therefore, whether the
mascot’s antics and their resulting distraction of Lowe operated to increase the inherent
risks assumed by a spectator at a baseball game. Specifically, to establish the primary
assumption of risk defense, CLPB had to “show that any risk to spectators caused by the antics
of the mascot did not operate to increase those inherent risks to which spectators at baseball
games are unavoidably exposed.”

In other words, the key inquiry here is whether the risk which led to Lowe’s
injury involved some feature or aspect of the game which is inevitable or
unavoidable in the actual playing of the game. In the first instance, foul balls
hit into the spectators’ area clearly create a risk of injury. If such foul balls were to
be eliminated, it would be impossible to play the game. Thus, foul balls represent
an inherent risk to spectators attending baseball games…. [S]uch risk is
assumed. ���

In the opinion of the appeals court, the antics of the mascot was not integral to the sport of
baseball, like foul balls.

[T]he declaration of Mark Monninger, the person who dressed up as Tremor,
recounted that there were occasional games played when he was not there. In
view of this testimony, as a matter of law, we hold that the antics of the mascot
are not an essential or integral part of the playing of a baseball game. In
short, the game can be played in the absence of such antics… ���

What a mascot is, according to the deposition of Mark Monninger [Tremor] is a
marketing tool or simply entertainment. Mark Monninger states in his deposition
that he was sick two days during the 1994 season. The baseball game went on
without him there… [T]he game can be played without Tremor being present…
Tremor could entertain without even going into the stands… If that safety practice
had been in place during 1994, Mr. Lowe would not have been interfered with and
injured by the foul ball… ���Tremor’s antics in hitting Lowe with its tail
distracted Lowe and prevented Lowe from being able to protect himself from
any batted ball and foreseeably increased the risk to John Lowe over and
above those inherent in the sport. ���

As a result, the appeals court held that “the Quakes’ mascot cavorting in the stands and
distracting Lowe’s attention, while the game was in progress… constituted negligence in the
form of increasing the inherent risk to Lowe of being struck by a foul ball.” The appeals
court, therefore, reversed the summary judgment of the trial court in favor of CLPB.