Case Brief Submission

Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Case Brief Assignment
Citation of Case: Shuman v. Laverne Coop, 809 P.2d 76, (1991).
Facts: On a cold day in March of 1988, Steve, son to Jack Shuman, the Appellee in this case, drove to Laverne Farmers Cooperative (Coop), the Appellant in this case, to buy a new tire. The tire was successfully installed, and Steve drove until he reached home. However, as he entered his driveway, the car becomes stuck in ice and snow. Steve tried to spin his tires. The new tire blew out, and the car was much damaged. Shuman, Steve’s father, claimed for car damages from Coop. However, Coop denied.
Evidence submitted at trial showed that when the tires spin at high speed on ice and snow, then it makes the tires separate the service; manager at Coop said that he was not aware of the likelihood of the car tires bursting under ice and snow. Therefore, he could not warn Steve. On the other hand, Steve mentioned that he heard of cases of tire failure during icy and snowy conditions. Coop was found liable for the damages on the car since they did not warn Steve on the likelihood of this danger. Coop appealed the decision.
Issue: Did Laverne Farmers Cooperative act professionally when selling the new car tire to Steve, the Appellee’s son?
Decision: No
Reason: There is no doubt Coop acted unprofessionally in the sale of the new car tire to Steve, Jack Shuman’s son. It is almost impossible to believe that Coop’s service manager had never heard cases of tire blowouts while he sells tires for a living.

And it becomes more difficult to believe since Steve himself had heard of such cases. It is, therefore, certain that Coop had information on the likelihood of a tire blow-out in the icy and snowy, but chose not to share this information with their client. Coop acted unprofessionally, and he is, therefore, liable for Shuman’s car damages.