Goepfert v. Filler Case Brief
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 passenger died after jumping from a moving car. His parents sued the driver for negligence. The court affirmed summary judgment for the driver, finding the decedent assumed the risk of his obviously dangerous act as a matter of law, thereby negating the driver’s duty.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates that while assumption of the risk is typically a jury question, it can be decided as a matter of law when the plaintiff’s knowledge, appreciation, and voluntary acceptance of an obvious danger are conclusively established by undisputed facts.
Goepfert v. Filler 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
The decedent, Michael Goepfert, a 22-year-old college student, was a passenger in a car driven by the defendant, Chris Stethem. As the car, traveling at 10-15 mph, approached a bar, other passengers asked to be let out. Stethem initially refused but then stated, “If you want to get out, get out.” As the traffic light turned green and Stethem began to accelerate, Goepfert, without warning, opened the passenger door and jumped from the vehicle. He fell, struck his head on the pavement, and later died from his injuries. Goepfert’s parents brought a wrongful death action against Stethem, alleging negligence. The other passengers testified that they believed Stethem’s comment was made in jest and that they were surprised by Goepfert’s actions. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Stethem, concluding that Goepfert had assumed the risk of his injuries as a matter of law. The decedent’s parents appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a passenger in a vehicle be found to have assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law when they, without warning, voluntarily jump from the moving vehicle?
Yes. The court held that Goepfert assumed the risk as a matter 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
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
Can a passenger in a vehicle be found to have assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law when they, without warning, voluntarily jump from the moving vehicle?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that where a plaintiff engages in conduct involving 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 laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cil
Legal Rule
The affirmative defense of assumption of the risk is established when it 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 voluptat
Legal Analysis
The court affirmed summary judgment by systematically applying the three-part test 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 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 en
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.