Adams v. . Bullock Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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 boy swinging a long wire from a bridge was injured when it contacted a trolley wire below. The court found the trolley company not liable, ruling the bizarre accident was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that the company had a duty to prevent.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the scope of the duty of care is limited by reasonable foreseeability. A defendant is not liable for failing to take precautions against extraordinary, improbable accidents that could not be reasonably anticipated.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The defendant operated a trolley line using an overhead wire system. The line passed under a railroad bridge that pedestrians, including children, often used as a shortcut. The plaintiff, a twelve-year-old boy, was on the bridge swinging an eight-foot-long wire. As he swung it, the wire made contact with the defendant’s trolley wire, which was situated four feet and seven inches below the top of the bridge’s parapet. The plaintiff suffered severe shocks and burns. The trolley wire was positioned such that a person on the bridge could not reach it by standing or leaning over the side. No similar accident had ever occurred at this location, and the defendant had not implemented any special guards for the wire at this particular crossing.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the defendant breach its duty of care by failing to insulate or otherwise guard its trolley wire against the unforeseeable event of a person on an overhead bridge making contact with it via a long, conductive object?
No, the defendant was not negligent. The court reversed the judgment for 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 cu
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the defendant breach its duty of care by failing to insulate or otherwise guard its trolley wire against the unforeseeable event of a person on an overhead bridge making contact with it via a long, conductive object?
Conclusion
Adams v. Bullock is a landmark case illustrating the principle that foreseeability Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ve
Legal Rule
While the operator of a dangerous instrumentality must exercise a high degree 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 iru
Legal Analysis
Writing for the court, Judge Cardozo reasoned that negligence requires a breach 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,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant is not liable for negligence when an injury results