Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Woodall v. Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of California
20 Cal. Rptr. 572 (1962)


Facts

Alphonse Woodall (plaintiff) performed a stunt in which he sat on a kite attached to a moving boat or car and gave the impression of flying through the air. Woodall had done the stunt hundreds of times without suffering injury and could control every aspect of the kite’s flight except for the boat or car’s speed. Woodall required an experienced, qualified driver who could understand speed signals that Woodall gave during the stunt. It was important that the vehicle’s speed was reduced immediately upon the kite’s becoming airborne. It was also vital that the speed of the vehicle never go above 30 miles per hour. Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc. (Steffner) (defendant) hired Woodall to perform the stunt for a television show. Woodall informed Steffner that his primary requirement was to have a qualified driver. Woodall offered to bring his own driver, but Steffner assured him that it would provide an experienced, qualified driver to assist with the stunt. Steffner provided Jerome Welo (defendant) to do the driving for the stunt. Woodall gave Welo specific instructions and informed him of all requirements and signals necessary for a successful stunt, including the speed limit. In the performance of the stunt, Welo started too slowly, attempted to overcorrect, and eventually got up to speeds above 40 miles per hour, according to estimates of Woodall and an expert witness. As a result of the high speed, the kite crashed, and Woodall was seriously injured. Woodall brought a negligence suit against the defendants. The defendants argued that Woodall assumed the risk. The trial court found in favor of Woodall, and the defendants appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Ashburn, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.