Brief the case of Savino v. Robinson.

Brief the case of Savino v. Robinson. The four elements of a brief are summarized in the Case Brief Guidelines and Rubric document.

In  addition to the brief, discuss negligence issues in Savino v.  Robertson, the case’s connection to Nabozny v. Barnhill, and what  constitutes “organized competition.” (this part goes in the questions area at the end)

WE WRITE PAPERS FOR STUDENTS

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your project.

Write My Essay For Me

Case briefs should be one page in length (single spaced), use 12-point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins, and list citations
Case Citation:
Plaintiff v. Defendant, Volume Source Page (Court Date)
(e.g., Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, 148 N.H. 407 (2002))
Body (one paragraph for each element):
Facts: Outline the pertinent facts in the case, highlighting those with bearing on the court’s final decision.

Issues: Present the specific legal question(s) before the court. If the court raised/addressed multiple issues, address each separately.
Your issues should be concisely stated in question form and specific, not generalizations.

Holding (Decision): Outline the final decision of the court in this case. Answer the questions that you stated in the issues section.

Rationale: Your brief should conclude with a summary of the explanation by the court of its findings. Why did the court answer the legal question in the manner that it did?

Additional Questions/Discussion: In some of the case briefs additional discussion questions have been provided for you to answer.
Provide a brief (no more than one page, single spaced) answer to these questions. You must justify and support your answers.

Sample Solution

Savino v. Robinson 205 Cal. App. 3d 1554 (1988)

Facts: The plaintiff, Savino, was a recreational softball player who was struck by a thrown ball during a game and sustained serious injuries. He sued the defendant, Robinson, for negligence. The trial court found that Robinson was not negligent because the activity of playing softball was an “inherently dangerous activity.”

Issues:

  1. Was Robinson negligent in throwing the ball that hit Savino?
  2. Does the “inherently dangerous activity” defense apply in this case?

Holding (Decision): The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and held that Robinson was negligent. The court rejected the “inherently dangerous activity” defense, finding that it was not applicable in this case.

Rationale: The court found that the “inherently dangerous activity” defense only applies to activities that are dangerous in their “normal and ordinary” sense, such as boxing or bullfighting. The court held that recreational softball is not inherently dangerous in the normal and ordinary sense, and therefore the defense did not apply. The court found that Robinson was negligent in throwing the ball that hit Savino, as it

BEST-ESSAY-WRITERS-ONLINE

Order Original and Plagiarism-free Papers Written from Scratch:

PLACE YOUR ORDER