Connection lost
Server error
DiSalvatore v. United States 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: A worker died falling down an elevator shaft. The court, predicting Pennsylvania law, found the employer negligent for not providing a safety net, holding this failure was the proximate cause of death and the decedent was not contributorily negligent due to economic duress.
Legal Significance: This case significantly predicts Pennsylvania’s adoption of a liberal view on proximate causation in “second accident” scenarios and recognizes economic duress as a factor negating contributory negligence or assumption of risk in workplace injury cases.
DiSalvatore v. United States 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
Plaintiff’s decedent, DiSalvatore, a construction worker, fell to his death in an open elevator shaft. The defendant, United States, was found negligent for failing to provide or require a safety net in the shaft. The court initially found for the defendant but granted a new trial upon realizing an incorrect legal standard had been applied. Amended findings of fact established that the absence of the safety net was the cause of DiSalvatore’s death, although not the precipitating cause of his fall; had a net been present, he would have suffered no injuries. Evidence regarding the precise cause of the fall—whether due to attempting to remove a plank alone or the warped condition of the plank he stood on—was conflicting and speculative. Ordinarily a two-man job, DiSalvatore continued removing planking alone due to an unwritten rule that an employee found idle, even awaiting a partner, faced immediate dismissal. The court found he acted under economic duress and did not act voluntarily or unreasonably.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under Pennsylvania law, did the defendant’s negligent failure to provide a safety net constitute the proximate cause of the decedent’s death, and was the decedent barred from recovery due to contributory negligence or assumption of risk when he continued working alone under economic duress?
Yes, the defendant’s negligence in failing to provide a safety net was 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 de
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
Under Pennsylvania law, did the defendant’s negligent failure to provide a safety net constitute the proximate cause of the decedent’s death, and was the decedent barred from recovery due to contributory negligence or assumption of risk when he continued working alone under economic duress?
Conclusion
This case is significant for its predictive analysis of Pennsylvania tort law, 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
Legal Rule
An actor's negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm if 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 off
Legal Analysis
The court, tasked with predicting Pennsylvania law, distinguished this case from the 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. Excep
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant’s failure to provide a required safety device is the
