From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Mattingly v. Sheldon Jackson College
Alaska Supreme Court
743 P.2d 356 (1987)
Facts
George Mattingly (plaintiff) owned Harbor Mechanical and Fire Protection (Harbor Mechanical) in Sitka and Ketchikan. Sheldon Jackson College (the College) (defendant) contacted Harbor Mechanical to clean a drainpipe. George dispatched three employees, including his son Thomas, to clean the drainpipe. The College dug a trench to expose the drainpipe so that George’s employees could clean it. The trench collapsed on George’s employees. George alleged he took time away from his managerial duties in Ketchikan to go tend to his injured son and employees in Sitka. George further claimed that he lost the services of those three employees, and thereby lost business, business reputation, and income, and that he incurred expenses for the medical care and treatment of his employees. George sued the College for alleged willful, reckless, and negligent conduct, seeking damages for loss of income and profits suffered due to the loss of his employees’ services, medical expenses for his employees, damages for his own emotional distress, and punitive damages. George argued that the foreseeable risk of harm to his business due to a cave-in imposed a duty on the College to take reasonable precautions in digging the trench. The superior court dismissed George’s complaint, holding that George had failed to allege a cause of action.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matthews, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
