Sample Case Brief Essays

Sample Case Brief Essays Sample Case Brief Paper Sample Case Brief Paper Kathryn Myrick Business Law 1 Professor McDonnell Case Brief A. 5 Braun v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine Inc. , 968 F. 2d 1110 (11th Cir. 1992) FACTS:In 1985 Michael Savage placed an ad in the Soldier of Fortune Magazine (â€Å"SOF†) advertising â€Å"Gun For Hire†. The ad ran from June 1985 to March 1986 generating an average of 30-40 call per week for jobs ranging from murder, kidnapping, assault and other criminal activity. After three previous failed attempts on his business partner Richard Braun’s life by Bruce Gastwirth , he contacted and hired Savage to commit the murder of Braun. Savage along with associates John Moore and Sean Doutre went to Braun’s home to carry out the act shot and killed Braun in front of his sixteen year old son Michael Braun who was also shot and wounded by the assailants. Michael and Ian Braun filed a lawsuit against â€Å"SOF† magazine alleging negligence. ISSUE(S): (1) Did Soldier of Fortune Magazine negligently advertised the ad breaching the duty of care? 2) Did SOF Magazine know of the potential risks by placing the ad in the magazine? (3) Did the ad contribute to the proximate cause of the murder of Richard Braun? HOLDING: The district court’s assertion that the publisher is liable for damages and negligently placed an advertisement that was apparent for substantial danger and potentially harmful to the public. The trial court’s langu age of the advertisement was the proximate cause of Braun’s injuries that he sustained. RULE OF LAW: To prevail in an action for negligence in Georgia a party must establish the following elements: (1) Legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm. (2) A breach of this standard. (3) A legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury (4) Some loss or damage flowing to the Plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty. CONCLUSION: The court AFFIRMS the district court’s judgment.