Connection lost
Server error
Cox v. May Department Store Co. 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: Plaintiff, injured when her jacket caught in an escalator, sued the store and maintenance company. The court reversed summary judgment for defendants, holding res ipsa loquitur applied because such accidents imply negligence, defendants controlled the escalator, and comparative negligence abrogated the “no plaintiff fault” element.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies Arizona’s res ipsa loquitur doctrine, notably holding that comparative negligence abrogates the requirement that the plaintiff be free from fault. It reinforces that “exclusive control” refers to the injury-causing instrumentality, not necessarily the plaintiff’s interaction with it.
Cox v. May Department Store Co. 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
Janelle Cox sustained injuries when her jacket became lodged between the moving handrail and stationary guide of an escalator at Robinson’s Department Store, owned by May Department Store Co. Montgomery Elevator Company was contracted to maintain the escalator. Cox asserted she was riding the escalator in a normal manner, wearing an ordinary jacket, and had noticed nothing unusual prior to the incident. Inspections by Montgomery (eleven days before and two weeks after) and the City of Phoenix (four months before and two months after) revealed no defects or need for maintenance. Cox and her husband sued May for negligent failure to maintain safe premises and warn of hazards, and Montgomery for negligent design, manufacture, installation, maintenance, and failure to warn. Plaintiffs invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of evidence of any defect or specific negligence. Plaintiffs submitted an expert affidavit from a mechanical engineer, opining that the accident would not have occurred if the escalator had been properly designed and maintained. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding res ipsa loquitur inapplicable, primarily because it concluded the “exclusive control” element was not met.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment by finding res ipsa loquitur inapplicable, specifically regarding the “exclusive control” element, and by failing to recognize that Arizona’s comparative negligence statute abrogated the “no voluntary action by plaintiff” element?
Yes, the trial court erred. The appellate court reversed the 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 d
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
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment by finding res ipsa loquitur inapplicable, specifically regarding the “exclusive control” element, and by failing to recognize that Arizona’s comparative negligence statute abrogated the “no voluntary action by plaintiff” element?
Conclusion
This decision is significant for adapting the common law doctrine of *res 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 a
Legal Rule
*Res ipsa loquitur* allows a negligence inference if: (1) the event usually 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 cu
Legal Analysis
The court systematically reviewed the elements of *res ipsa loquitur*. First, it 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, 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Court reversed summary judgment for defendants in an escalator injury case,
