GRANT v. AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS 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 plaintiff contracted hepatitis from a blood transfusion and sued the Red Cross. Because he could only prove a 40% chance that a proposed screening test would have prevented his injury, the court rejected his “loss of chance” causation theory and affirmed summary judgment for the defendant.
Legal Significance: This case reinforces the traditional “more likely than not” standard for proximate causation in negligence and strictly limits the “loss of chance” doctrine, declining to apply it to a claim against a blood supplier where the preventative measure had a less-than-majority chance of success.
GRANT v. AMERICAN NAT. RED CROSS 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
In 1982, plaintiff Calvin Grant received five units of blood supplied by the American National Red Cross during heart surgery. He was subsequently diagnosed with hepatitis C, which was traced to one of the blood donors. At the time of the transfusion, no direct test for hepatitis C (then known as non-A, non-B hepatitis) existed. Grant filed a negligence action against the Red Cross, alleging it breached the standard of care by failing to use a “surrogate test” for elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. Grant’s own evidence indicated that ALT testing could identify, at most, 40% of blood infected with the virus. Consequently, Grant conceded he could not prove that it was “more likely than not” (i.e., greater than 50% probability) that ALT testing would have identified the contaminated blood unit and prevented his infection. Instead, he argued that the Red Cross’s failure to test deprived him of a substantial chance of avoiding the harm. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Red Cross, finding the plaintiff’s evidence on causation was insufficient as a matter of law.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Must a plaintiff in a negligence action prove that the defendant’s conduct was, more likely than not, the cause-in-fact of the injury, or is it sufficient to show the defendant’s negligence deprived the plaintiff of a substantial, but less-than-fifty-percent, chance of avoiding the harm?
Yes. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that 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
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
Must a plaintiff in a negligence action prove that the defendant’s conduct was, more likely than not, the cause-in-fact of the injury, or is it sufficient to show the defendant’s negligence deprived the plaintiff of a substantial, but less-than-fifty-percent, chance of avoiding the harm?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the primacy of the "more likely than not" standard 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 nost
Legal Rule
To establish proximate causation in a negligence action, a plaintiff must introduce 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 dolor
Legal Analysis
The court held that the "more likely than not" standard for proximate 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The D.C. Court of Appeals requires plaintiffs in negligence actions to