Connection lost
Server error
GODESKY v. PROVO CITY CORP. 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 electric company was held liable for a roofer’s severe injuries from an uninsulated wire. The court affirmed, holding that the employer’s intervening negligence was not a superseding cause because it was foreseeable, and the company owed an exceptional duty of care due to electricity’s inherent danger.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that an intervening negligent act is not a superseding cause if it was foreseeable to the original tortfeasor. It also affirms that distributors of electricity owe a duty of care commensurate with the extreme danger involved, described as “exceptional.”
GODESKY v. PROVO CITY CORP. 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, an inexperienced roofer, was severely electrocuted when his supervisor instructed him to tie off a low-hanging, non-electrified wire to a higher, uninsulated 2,400-volt power line. The power line, owned by defendant Provo City Corp., ran just 9.5 feet above the roof of a residential building. To reach the upper wire, the roofing crew pulled it down with a rope. When plaintiff grasped the wire, he suffered catastrophic injuries resulting in the amputation of both arms. Provo City admitted it had no inspection program for its lines, had not trimmed a tree obscuring a nearby transformer, and that stringing an uninsulated high-voltage wire over a residence violated its own policy. A jury found Provo City 70% negligent, the building owner 20% negligent, and the plaintiff’s employer 10% negligent. Provo City appealed, arguing that the employer’s negligence was a superseding cause that relieved Provo of all liability.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a third party’s foreseeable negligence constitute a superseding cause that relieves the original negligent actor of liability as a matter of law?
No. The court affirmed the judgment against Provo City, holding that 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
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
Does a third party’s foreseeable negligence constitute a superseding cause that relieves the original negligent actor of liability as a matter of law?
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the modern tort principle that foreseeability is the touchstone 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 r
Legal Rule
An intervening negligent act does not supersede an original actor's negligence and 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 do
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the doctrine of superseding causation. Provo City 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 ad
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The negligence of a third party is not a superseding cause