Connection lost
Server error
Brown v. Kendall Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man attempting to break up a dog fight with a stick accidentally struck a bystander. The court ruled he is only liable if he failed to exercise ordinary care, establishing that the plaintiff must prove the defendant’s negligence to recover for an unintentional injury.
Legal Significance: This landmark case established the modern fault-based negligence standard for unintentional torts in American law, shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care.
Brown v. Kendall Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The defendant, George Kendall, and the plaintiff, George Brown, both had dogs that began fighting. To separate them, Kendall retrieved a four-foot-long stick. As the dogs came together again, Kendall stepped backward and raised the stick over his shoulder, intending to strike the dogs. The plaintiff had also moved and was now standing behind the defendant. Unaware of the plaintiff’s position, the defendant’s backward swing with the stick struck the plaintiff in the eye, causing a severe injury. The parties agreed that the defendant’s act of striking the plaintiff was not intentional. The defendant’s act of attempting to separate the fighting dogs was considered a lawful act. The trial court instructed the jury that if the defendant’s act was not necessary (i.e., not a legal duty), he was liable unless he proved he exercised extraordinary care. The defendant appealed the jury instructions.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: For a plaintiff to recover for an injury caused by the direct, unintentional act of a defendant engaged in a lawful activity, must the plaintiff prove that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care?
Yes. A new trial was ordered because the trial court’s instructions were Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
For a plaintiff to recover for an injury caused by the direct, unintentional act of a defendant engaged in a lawful activity, must the plaintiff prove that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care?
Conclusion
This case is foundational to modern tort law, establishing negligence—defined as a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exer
Legal Rule
Where a defendant's lawful act causes an unintentional injury to a plaintiff, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea c
Legal Analysis
Chief Justice Shaw, writing for the court, fundamentally shifted the basis of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, c
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- To recover for an unintentional injury from a lawful act, the