Connection lost
Server error
Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. 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: An intoxicated seaman returning to his ship damaged the drydock it was in. The court held his employer, the U.S. government, vicariously liable, finding the seaman’s destructive act was a foreseeable risk characteristic of the enterprise, even though it did not serve the employer’s purpose.
Legal Significance: This case established a modern test for respondeat superior, shifting the inquiry from the employee’s subjective motive to an objective test of whether the employee’s conduct, however bizarre, was a foreseeable risk arising from the employer’s enterprise.
Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. 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
The United States Coast Guard vessel Tamaroa was being overhauled in a floating drydock owned by Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. The contract between Bushey and the government stipulated that the vessel’s crew would have access to the ship at all times. One night, Seaman Lane, returning from shore leave while heavily intoxicated, walked along the drydock wall to board the vessel. For reasons unknown, he turned several wheels on the wall, which opened valves controlling the drydock’s flooding tanks. The drydock began to flood and list, causing the Tamaroa to slide off its blocks and fall against the drydock wall, resulting in significant damage to both. It was undisputed that Lane’s actions were not motivated by any purpose to serve his employer, the United States government. Bushey sued the United States to recover for the damage to its drydock, arguing for vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an employer vicariously liable for the damaging acts of its employee when the conduct was not intended to serve any purpose of the employer but arose out of a risk reasonably foreseeable and characteristic of the employer’s enterprise?
Yes, the United States is vicariously liable for the damage caused by 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
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
Is an employer vicariously liable for the damaging acts of its employee when the conduct was not intended to serve any purpose of the employer but arose out of a risk reasonably foreseeable and characteristic of the employer’s enterprise?
Conclusion
This decision is a landmark in the evolution of respondeat superior, establishing 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
Legal Rule
An employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employee, even 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 e
Legal Analysis
Writing for the court, Judge Friendly moved beyond the traditional "motive test" 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 d
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s torts if the
