Hillman v. Ellingson 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 school bus driver, found liable for failing to stop horseplay, sought indemnity from the students who directly caused another’s injury. The court granted full indemnity, holding the driver’s liability was secondary to the students’ primary, active negligence.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a party whose negligence is passive or secondary (e.g., failure to supervise) is entitled to indemnity from the party whose negligence is active and primary (the direct cause of harm), precluding the application of comparative fault principles between them.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Douglas Hillman, a minor, was injured on a school bus when a plastic hose, stretched down the aisle by students LaDon Ellingson and Ronald Kleven, broke and struck him in the eye. The bus driver, Lyle Wallin, was aware of the students’ horseplay via his interior mirror but did not intervene before the injury occurred, testifying his attention was on traffic. Wallin had a recognized duty to maintain discipline on the bus. A jury, asked to apportion negligence, found Wallin 76% negligent and the two students 12% negligent each. Wallin had filed a cross-claim against the students seeking contribution or indemnity for any liability he incurred. The trial court did not rule on the cross-claim, and Wallin appealed the denial of his post-trial motions, arguing he was entitled to indemnity.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a tortfeasor whose liability arises solely from a negligent failure to prevent the misconduct of others entitled to indemnity from the tortfeasors who actively and directly caused the injury?
Yes. The court reversed and held that the bus driver was entitled 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 comm
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
Is a tortfeasor whose liability arises solely from a negligent failure to prevent the misconduct of others entitled to indemnity from the tortfeasors who actively and directly caused the injury?
Conclusion
This case clarifies the distinction between contribution and indemnity, establishing that indemnity 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 e
Legal Rule
A tortfeasor is entitled to indemnity "[w]here the one seeking indemnity has 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 e
Legal Analysis
The court distinguished between contribution, which requires common liability and apportions fault, 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 oc
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A party whose liability is based on a negligent failure to