Connection lost
Server error
Kingston v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 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 railroad’s negligently started fire merged with another fire of unknown origin, destroying the plaintiff’s property. The court held the railroad fully liable because both fires were likely caused by human actors, and either fire alone would have been sufficient to cause the damage.
Legal Significance: Establishes that when two independent, concurrent tortious acts cause an indivisible injury, and either act alone would have been sufficient to cause the harm, a known tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable for the entire damage.
Kingston v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway 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
The plaintiff’s property was destroyed by a fire that resulted from the merger of two distinct fires. The court found sufficient evidence that the defendant, Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., negligently started one of these fires (the northeast fire) with sparks from its locomotive. The origin of the second fire (the northwest fire) was unknown, but the court found no evidence to suggest it was of natural origin (e.g., lightning) and presumed it was started by some human agency. The two fires were of comparatively equal size and merged approximately 940 feet from the plaintiff’s property before destroying it. The evidence established that either fire, acting alone, would have been sufficient to destroy the plaintiff’s property at the same time. The defendant argued it should not be held liable because its fire was not the sole proximate cause of the damage, and the fire of unknown origin constituted a superseding cause.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: When a fire negligently started by a defendant merges with another fire of unknown but presumably human origin, and either fire alone would have been sufficient to destroy the plaintiff’s property, is the defendant liable for the entire resulting damage?
Yes, the defendant is liable for the entire damage. The court held 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
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
When a fire negligently started by a defendant merges with another fire of unknown but presumably human origin, and either fire alone would have been sufficient to destroy the plaintiff’s property, is the defendant liable for the entire resulting damage?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent for applying joint and several liability 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
Legal Rule
Where two causes, each attributable to the negligence of a responsible person, 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 con
Legal Analysis
The court addressed a classic problem of concurrent sufficient causes in tort 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 s
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant whose negligent act is a substantial factor in causing