Connection lost
Server error
Dula McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. 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 hotel guest was assaulted after an intruder entered her room through an unlocked sliding glass door. The court affirmed a jury verdict for the hotel, famously applying the Hand Formula to find the hotel was not negligent for failing to take further, unproven precautions.
Legal Significance: This case is a landmark for its explicit application of Judge Learned Hand’s B < PL formula to a standard negligence claim, illustrating how economic principles can define the “reasonable person” standard of care and determine breach of duty.
Dula McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. 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
Dula McCarty, a guest at the Pheasant Run resort, was assaulted in her second-floor room by an intruder. The intruder gained entry through a sliding glass door that opened onto a publicly accessible walkway. A police investigation revealed the door had been closed but left unlocked by McCarty, though a safety chain was engaged and subsequently broken by the intruder. McCarty sued Pheasant Run for negligence, alleging a breach of its duty to protect guests from criminal acts. Her theories of negligence included the hotel’s failure to provide better locks, employ more security guards, warn guests to lock doors, or make the walkway inaccessible. At trial, McCarty did not present evidence quantifying the cost or likely effectiveness of these proposed precautions. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant hotel, which McCarty appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did a hotel breach its duty of care to protect a guest from a criminal attack when the plaintiff failed to prove that the burden of taking additional security precautions was less than the gravity of the potential harm multiplied by its probability?
No, the hotel did not breach its duty of care. The court 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 v
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 a hotel breach its duty of care to protect a guest from a criminal attack when the plaintiff failed to prove that the burden of taking additional security precautions was less than the gravity of the potential harm multiplied by its probability?
Conclusion
The case is a principal example of the law and economics approach 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 ess
Legal Rule
Negligence constitutes the failure to take a precaution where the burden (B) 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 ess
Legal Analysis
The court, led by Judge Posner, analyzed the defendant's alleged negligence through 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 consequa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A jury verdict for a defendant hotel was affirmed where a