Kramer Service, Inc. v. Wilkins 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 hotel was liable for an initial injury from a broken transom but not for the guest’s subsequent cancer. The court held that medical testimony establishing only a possibility of causation, rather than a probability, is insufficient to support a damages award for the cancer.
Legal Significance: Establishes that to prove causation in a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show the defendant’s act was a probable cause of the injury, not merely a possible one. The logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc is insufficient proof of causation.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Wilkins, was a business invitee visiting a registered guest at a hotel operated by the defendant, Kramer Service, Inc. The hotel room had a broken glass transom, a condition of which the hotel staff had been notified. As the plaintiff was leaving the room, the broken piece of glass fell and struck him on the head, causing a wound to his temple. The court found the defendant was negligent and liable for this initial injury, as the risk was foreseeable. Approximately two years later, the plaintiff developed skin cancer at the exact location of the temple wound. At trial, one medical expert testified that it was possible for such a trauma to cause cancer, but that the probability was only one in one hundred. Another expert testified that no causal link exists between trauma and cancer. The jury returned a large verdict for the plaintiff, evidently including damages for the cancer. The defendant appealed the damages award, arguing the jury should not have been allowed to consider the cancer.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a negligence action, is expert testimony establishing that an injury was a possible, but not probable, cause of a subsequent medical condition sufficient to prove causation and permit a jury to award damages for that condition?
No. The court affirmed liability for the initial injury but reversed 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 cill
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
In a negligence action, is expert testimony establishing that an injury was a possible, but not probable, cause of a subsequent medical condition sufficient to prove causation and permit a jury to award damages for that condition?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational authority on the element of causation in 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 e
Legal Rule
To establish causation in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must produce evidence 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the standard of proof required for 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 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 ame
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant is liable for injuries caused by a known dangerous