Connection lost
Server error
YUN v. FORD MOTOR 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 man was killed crossing a highway to retrieve a spare tire that fell from his van due to a defect. The court found the manufacturers not liable, ruling the man’s “highly extraordinary” act was a superseding cause that broke the chain of causation.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a plaintiff’s unforeseeable and “highly extraordinary” conduct can, as a matter of law, constitute a superseding cause that severs the proximate cause link to a defendant’s initial negligence or defective product, thereby precluding liability.
YUN v. FORD MOTOR 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
Chang Hak Yun was a passenger in a van when its spare tire, secured by an allegedly defective bracket, fell off onto the Garden State Parkway at night. The driver safely pulled the van onto the shoulder. Chang, who was 65 years old, then exited the vehicle, ran across two lanes of the dark, rain-slicked highway, and retrieved the tire from the median. While attempting to run back across the highway to the van, he was struck and killed by another car. One month prior, Chang and the van’s owner had been advised by a mechanic that the tire bracket was bent and damaged but declined to have it repaired. Chang’s estate sued the van’s manufacturer and the installers of the spare tire assembly, alleging the product defect was the proximate cause of his death. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no proximate cause.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Was the decedent’s decision to run across a major highway at night to retrieve a fallen spare tire a legally sufficient superseding cause that, as a matter of law, broke the chain of proximate causation between the defendants’ allegedly defective product and his death?
Yes. The decedent’s actions were a “highly extraordinary” and unforeseeable intervening act 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 labori
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
Was the decedent’s decision to run across a major highway at night to retrieve a fallen spare tire a legally sufficient superseding cause that, as a matter of law, broke the chain of proximate causation between the defendants’ allegedly defective product and his death?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates a court's willingness to treat proximate cause as a 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 lab
Legal Rule
An actor's conduct is not a legal cause of harm if, looking 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the doctrine of proximate cause, specifically 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defective spare tire carrier was not the proximate cause of
