Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Van Camp v. McAfoos Case Brief

Supreme Court of Iowa1968Docket #2079238
156 N.W.2d 878 261 Iowa 1124

Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go

Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.

Reinforces complex concepts Improves retention Multi-modal learning

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

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A woman sued a three-year-old who ran into her with his tricycle. The court dismissed the case, holding that a tort requires an allegation of fault, and that parental liability requires knowledge of a child’s specific dangerous propensity, not just normal childhood activity.

Legal Significance: Establishes that a plaintiff must plead and prove an element of fault (intent or negligence) to recover for an injury caused by a child. It also adopts the Restatement rule for parental liability, requiring knowledge of a child’s specific dangerous propensities.

Van Camp v. McAfoos 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 Van Camp was injured when defendant Mark McAfoos, a three-year-old child, drove his tricycle into the back of her leg while she was on a public sidewalk. In her petition against the child (Division I), the plaintiff deliberately omitted any allegation of negligence or intent, arguing that the mere injurious contact was sufficient to establish liability. In a separate claim against the child’s parents (Division II), the plaintiff alleged they were negligent for failing to properly supervise their child. The basis for this claim was that the parents knew their son had a “propensity for riding the [tricycle] upon or near the public sidewalk,” which they should have known created an unreasonable risk of harm to others. The plaintiff alleged the parents breached their duty by failing to instruct the child’s babysitter to exercise proper control. The petition did not allege that the child had a specific propensity to use the tricycle in a harmful or wrongful manner, nor that the parents were aware of such a propensity. The trial court dismissed both claims for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Must a plaintiff plead and prove an element of fault, such as intent or negligence, to establish tort liability against a minor child for an act that causes injury, and to establish liability against the child’s parents for negligent supervision?

Yes. The court affirmed the dismissal of both claims. A petition against 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 null

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

Must a plaintiff plead and prove an element of fault, such as intent or negligence, to establish tort liability against a minor child for an act that causes injury, and to establish liability against the child’s parents for negligent supervision?

Conclusion

This case reinforces the foundational tort principle that liability requires fault 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,

Legal Rule

To state a cause of action in tort, a plaintiff must allege 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 i

Legal Analysis

The court analyzed the two claims separately. Regarding the claim against 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 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 dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip e

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A plaintiff must plead and prove fault (intent or negligence) to
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 p

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+