Connection lost
Server error
Christensen v. Swenson Case Brief
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: An employer was sued after its security guard caused an accident while on a quick, paid lunch break off-premises. The court ruled that a jury must decide if the trip served the employer’s interests enough to be within the ‘scope of employment’ for vicarious liability purposes.
Legal Significance: This case rejects a rigid, premises-based rule for ‘scope of employment,’ holding that off-site employee conduct during short, paid breaks can create vicarious liability if it confers a benefit upon the employer and is implicitly authorized.
Christensen v. Swenson 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
Burns International Security Services employed Gloria Swenson as a security guard at the Geneva Steel Plant. Swenson worked an eight-hour continuous shift with no scheduled breaks but was permitted ten- to fifteen-minute unscheduled, paid breaks. The only nearby food source was the Frontier Cafe, located across a public street from the plant. A menu for the cafe was posted at Swenson’s guard station, and Burns was aware that guards occasionally patronized it without being disciplined. On the day of the incident, Swenson noticed a lull in traffic, telephoned a soup order to the cafe, and drove her personal vehicle to pick it up. She intended to return immediately to her post to eat. The entire trip was expected to take 10-15 minutes. On her return trip, Swenson’s vehicle collided with a motorcycle on the public road just outside the plant, injuring Jeff Christensen and Kyle Fausett. They sued Swenson and Burns, alleging Burns was vicariously liable.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can an employee who causes an accident while driving her own vehicle off the employer’s premises during a short, paid lunch break be acting within the scope of employment, thereby subjecting the employer to vicarious liability?
Yes. Summary judgment for the employer was improper because reasonable minds could 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
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
Can an employee who causes an accident while driving her own vehicle off the employer’s premises during a short, paid lunch break be acting within the scope of employment, thereby subjecting the employer to vicarious liability?
Conclusion
The case establishes that the 'scope of employment' analysis is a fact-intensive 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 labor
Legal Rule
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for 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 proi
Legal Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' grant of summary judgment, 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 i
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employee on a short, paid break may be acting within