Connection lost
Server error
Parrot v. Wells, Fargo & 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: Common carrier Wells Fargo was not liable for an explosion caused by unmarked nitroglycerin, as they were unaware of the danger and handled the package with ordinary care.
Legal Significance: Establishes that liability for accidental harm requires proof of negligence; common carriers are not strictly liable for unknown dangerous contents handled with ordinary care and without suspicion.
Parrot v. Wells, Fargo & 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
Defendants, Wells, Fargo & Co., an express carrier, received a sealed wooden case for shipment. The case gave no outward indication of its contents. Unbeknownst to defendants or their employees, the case contained nitroglycerin. It was received in the regular course of business and handled in the same manner as other packages of similar outward appearance were usually handled. While the case was in defendants’ leased portion of plaintiff’s building, the nitroglycerin exploded. This explosion caused significant damage to plaintiff’s adjoining property, which was not leased to defendants. The trial court explicitly found that defendants, their employees, and employees of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company (who were also involved with the case) did not know the contents, had no means of knowing, and had no reason to suspect its dangerous character. The court also found no negligence in defendants’ receiving the case or in their failure to ascertain its dangerous nature, nor in the handling of the case at the time of the explosion. Defendants had already repaired the portion of the premises they leased. Plaintiff sued for damages to the other portions of his buildings.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Are common carriers liable for damages caused by the explosion of dangerous goods in their possession when they were innocently ignorant of the contents and handled them with ordinary care, absent any suspicious circumstances?
No, defendants are not liable for damages to the unleased portions of 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
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
Are common carriers liable for damages caused by the explosion of dangerous goods in their possession when they were innocently ignorant of the contents and handled them with ordinary care, absent any suspicious circumstances?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the principle that liability in tort for accidental harm 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
Legal Rule
Negligence is "the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided 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 eiusm
Legal Analysis
The Court determined that common carriers are not, as a matter of 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 f
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A common carrier is not liable for damage from an unknown