WIXLIB

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEFdecision to grant summary judgment to the owner of a wall fromwhich plaintiff had fallen and injured himself.Although theplaintiff had not been invited to sit on the wall, the courtfound there was a question of fact as to whether plaintiffreasonably believed he could sit on the wall since it was soclose to a main thoroughfare and there was a ladder next tothe wall. Id. at 48-49.The court found it significant thatthe wall did not have a sign telling people to keep off orwarning that the wall was dangerous. Id. at 49.Likewise here, plaintiff reasonably believed that she wasan invited guest to defendants' house.There was a "WELCOMEFRIENDS" mat on the front porch and upon entry, there werethree bowls of porridge on a counter. (Pa3; Pa5).There wasalso no indication that plaintiff should not enter the asonably thought defendants' home was that place. AlthoughMomma Bear testified that plaintiff was not a friend of COMEFRIENDS" mat as a general welcome to those who passed by thehouse.Defendants' violated their duty of care by failing tokeep their smallest chair in a safe condition and by failingtoprovidewarningsextremely weak chair.onthedangerousconditionoftheThese failures created a false sense ofsafety within the f8

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEFdefendants' negligence.Plaintiff was compelled to and didemploy the services of a hospital, a surgeon, and physiciansto treat and care for her injuries, which resulted in severalmedical bills and related costs of treatment.Plaintiff alsosuffered pain, emotional distress, and loss of wages.II.EVEN IF PLAINTIFF WAS A TRESPASSER ONDEFENDANTS' PROPERTY, THIS COURT SHOULDADOPT THE "MISTAKEN TRESPASSER" DOCTRINE SOPLAINTIFF CAN BE COMPENSATED FOR HER LOSSES(Not raised sbecause she made an innocent mistake in entering defendants'property.The Mother Goose Treatise on Personal Injury Lawadvocates the "mistaken trespasser" doctrine for passingonproperty. Mother H. Goose, Personal Injury Law § 15-4 at 1314(2d ed. 1987).adoptedtheTwo states, New Grimm and South Folktale, have"mistakenshould as well.trespasser" doctrine,and thisstateIt would be against public policy to denyplaintiff protection from the huge medical expenses and otherdamages she has incurred as a result of her injuries.According to Mother Goose's Treatise on Personal InjuryLaw: "If a person gets hurt, s/he should be made whole again.It does not matter that the injury occurred on a stranger's9

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEFland.What is important is that the person gets better."Mother H. Goose, Personal Injury Law § 15-4 at 1314 (2d ed.1987).However, "if the person's intentions were to do badthings on the land," the mistaken trespasser doctrine wouldnot apply. Id.NewJerseydoctrine yet.hasnotadoptedthe"mistakentrespasser"However, this court mentioned the doctrine andthe Mother Goose treatise favorably in a footnote in HumptyDumpty v. King, 1 N.J. Super. 24 (App. Div. 2000).This courtnoted: "we need not decide whether to adopt Mother Goose's'mistaken trespasser' doctrine today as we can decide esappear to be a fair way to handle trespasser injuries." Id. at49 n.3.Although New Jersey has not yet adopted the eshaveadoptedtheThe Supreme Court of New Grimm in George Dumpty v.Wolf, 123 New Grimm Reporter 456 (2010), which ty,heldthatplaintiff was entitled to compensation for his injuries causedby falling off a wall on defendant's property. Id. at 467.The court cited Mother Goose's treatise and reasoned that itwould be "unfair" and "just not nice" to not make plaintiffwhole again. Id. at 468.The court reasoned that plaintiffwas not behaving badly; he was sitting on the wall and causedno harm to defendant's property. Id.10

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEFSimilarly, the Supreme Court of South Folktale in HenryDumpty v. Smith, 78 S. Folktale Reporter 123 (2012), permittedcompensation to another cousin of Humpty Dumpty who injuredhimself while attempting to climb up a rock wall. Id. at 145.The court held that "it was just the right thing to do." Id.at 148.The court also found that plaintiff had no intentionto do bad things on the land. Id.Because the "mistaken trespasser" doctrine was not raisedin the trial court, per Rule 2:10-2, the standard of reviewfor this court is plain error.Rule 2:10-2 reads, in full:Any error or omission shall be disregardedby the appellate court unless it is of sucha nature as to have been clearly capable ofproducinganunjustresult,buttheappellate court may, in the interests ofjustice, notice plain error not brought tothe attention of the trial or appellatecourt.[R. fendants' property and had no intention to do anything bad.However, she was seriously injured and has a lot of unpaidmedicalbills.Itwould be againstpublicpolicytonotcompensate her for her injuries and other losses, includingongoing therapy and loss of wages.It would be against theinterests of justice to allow plaintiff to become pennilessdue to her innocent mistake.11

SAMPLE FORMAL hatthiscourtreverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment todefendants, hold that plaintiff was an invited guest who wasowed a duty of care, and remand the matter for a trial on theamount of damages.Alternatively, even if this court upholdsthe trial court's decision that plaintiff was a trespasser,this court should adopt the "mistaken trespasser" doctrine pensated for her losses.Respectfully submitted,Goldi LocksGoldi LocksDated: March 17, 201712

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEFGoldi Locksvs.Superior Court ofNew JerseyLaw DivisionMercer CountyPapa Bear and Momma BearDocket # L-0000-00PlaintiffORDER GRANTINGSUMMARY JUDGMENTDefendant(s)THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon the motion ofDefendants Papa and Momma Bear (Defendants), and upon notice toplaintiff Goldi Locks (Plaintiff), and the court having consideredthe moving and opposing papers as well as oral argument,IT IS IN THIS4thday ofNovember,2016;ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment shall beand the same is hereby granted, dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaintin its entirety as against Defendants, with prejudice, for the reasonsstated on the record on today's date; and it is furtherORDERED that a fully conformed copy of the within Order shallbe served upon all parties within seven (7) days of its receipt fromthe Court.I.M. FaireHonorable I. M. Faire, J.S.C.Pa1

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEFPlaintiff(s)Goldi LocksSuperior Court ofNew JerseyLaw DivisionMercer Countyvs.Docket #Defendant(s)Papa Bear and Momma BearCivil ActionComplaint, Demand for Jury TrialPlaintiff Goldi Locks(hereinafter "Plaintiff") makes the following allegations againstDefendant(s) Papa and Momma Bear (hereinafter "Defendants"):Parties1. Plaintiff has and currently resides in the County of Mercer at 28 Far Away Road,Neverland, New Jersey 08611.2. Defendants have and currently reside in the County of Mercer at 44 Warm WelcomeAvenue, Fairytale, New Jersey 08544, which is where the incident occurred. Defendants haveowned the property located at 44 Warm Welcome Avenue, since April 1, 2000.Jurisdiction and Venue3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction the incident from which this lawsuit arisesoccurred in Mercer County.4. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they areresidents of NJ, Mercer County.Statement of Facts5. On July 11, 2016, approximately between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m., the Plaintiff participatedin a yoga class at Forest Park, which is located in Pretend Ville, New Jersey. At the end of class,the Plaintiff was unable to obtain transportation back home. Although it was both hot and humidthat day, about 90 degrees Fahrenheit, the Plaintiff decided to walk home.6. At about 1:45, Plaintiff was about mid-way to reaching her destination and waswalking on Warm Welcome Avenue in Fairytale, Mercer County, NJ. By this time, the Plaintiffwas both fatigued and hungry, so the Plaintiff decided to look for a place to stop and rest beforecontinuing to walk home. At about 1:55 p.m., the Plaintiff came across a residence that had a“WELCOME FRIENDS” mat on the front porch and whose door was wide open. There were noPa2

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEFsigns on the property that indicated that the residence was private or warning trespassers to keepoff of the property. Therefore, Plaintiff was under the assumption that the residence was open tothe public and walked into the building, hoping to get some food and rest.7. Upon entering the residence the Plaintiff realized that no one was home. Instead,Plaintiff found three different sized bowls of porridge on the kitchen counter. Since the Plaintiffwas hungry, the Plaintiff decided to try a spoonful of porridge until finding the most tasteful.After trying the mid-sized bowl, Plaintiff exclaimed, "Yummy! This one is just right!"8. After finishing the mid-sized bowl of porridge, the Plaintiff decided to sit and rest onone of the three chairs nearby. The first and second chairs were too hard and too softrespectively, and the third chair broke upon plaintiff sitting on it. The fall from the chair causedplaintiff to fracture her left wrist. As plaintiff attempted to get up a splinter of wood from thechair splintered into her right foot. The pain from falling and the splinter incapacitated thePlaintiff from moving, so the Plaintiff laid on the floor motionless.9. At approximately 2:25 p.m., the Defendant's returned home, along with their son BabyBear. Baby Bear was the first to enter the home and panicked upon finding the Plaintiff lying onthe bottom of the steps. Baby Bear screamed and ran out the house. Instead of helping thePlaintiff who was clearly suffering from injuries, the Defendant's interrogated the Plaintiff andyelled, "You are going to prison for trespassing on our property!" The Defendant's proceeded bycalling the police. It was not until the police arrived at the scene, approximately 2:38 p.m., thatthe paramedics were called. Plaintiff was brought to the Happily Ever After Hospital.First Cause of Action – Negligence10. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-9 as if fully set forth herein.11. Plaintiff alleges that on July 11, 2016, the day of the incident, the Plaintiff was oweda duty of care by Defendants because the Plaintiff was an invitee in the Defendants’ residence.12. Although Defendants’ did not verbally invite Plaintiff into their residence, the“WELCOME FRIENDS” mat, the open door, and the three bowls of porridge were enough toimply it.13. As a result, Defendants’ owed Plaintiff the duty to exercise reasonable care inmaintaining the premise in safe conditions and to provide warnings of the presence of anyconcealed dangerous condition.14. Defendants’ violated their duty of care by failing to keep the chair in a safe conditionand by failing to provide warnings on the dangerous condition that the chair was in. Thesefailures created a false sense of safety within the residence.15. Plaintiff suffered harm that included a puncture wound on Plaintiff’s right foot, mildscrapes along the outer left foot, a twisted left ankle, and a fractured left wrist.16. Prior to injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Plaintiff was a physically active adult who wasin good physical and mental health.Pa3

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEF17. Plaintiff suffered said harm as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions.18. It was reasonably foreseeable that, by failing to maintain the chair in good conditionanyone who was in the Defendants’ residence could be injured while attempting to sit down.19. It was also reasonably foreseeable that, by failing to provide warnings regarding thedangerous condition the chair was in, anyone who was in the Defendants’ residence would havefalse sense of safety within the residence and would not use precaution when using the chair oravoid using it completely.20. Had it not been for the Defendants’ failure to fix or maintain the chair or to providewarnings regarding the dangerous condition that the chair was in, the Plaintiff would have notsuffered harm while in the Defendants’ residence.21. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff suffered actual damages. Due to theseverity of the harm that plaintiff suffered, as mentioned in paragraph 15, Plaintiff wascompelled to and did employ services of hospitals, nurses, surgeons, physicians, and physicaltherapists to treat and take care of Plaintiff, which resulted in several medical bills and relatedcosts of treatment.22. Other damages that the Plaintiff suffered include pain and suffering, emotionaldistress, and loss of wages.Claim for ReliefWherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgement against Defendant as follows:A. Compensatory damages, according to proof, for the following:B. For all current and future medical expenses incurred and to be incurredC. For past and future loss of wagesD. For emotional distressE. For loss of enjoyment and quality of lifeF. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on all issues raised in this complaint.Respectfully Submitted,Goldi LocksDated: January 11, 2016Pa4

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEFGoldi LocksSuperior Court ofNew JerseyLaw DivisionMercer Countyvs.Docket # L-000-00Defendant(s)ANSWERPlaintiff(s)Papa Bear and Momma BearDefendants, Papa and Momma Bear, Answer to the Complaint as follows:Parties1. Defendants neither deny nor admit the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of theComplaint and therefore, leaves plaintiff to her proofs.2. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.Jurisdiction and Venue3. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.4. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.Statement of Facts5. Defendants deny having knowledge or information sufficient enough to form a beliefas to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint and therefore, leaves plaintiff toher proofs.6. Defendants admit that they do have a "WELCOME FRIENDS" mat on the front porch,that the door was open, and that there were no signs on the property indicating that the residencewas private or warning trespasser to keep off of their property, and otherwise denies the rest ofthe allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.7. Defendants admit that no one was home the day of the incident and that there were 3different sized bowls on the kitchen counter, and otherwise denies the rest of the allegationscontained in paragraph 7 of the complaint.8. Defendants admit that there were 3 chairs near the kitchen counter, and otherwisedenies having knowledge or information sufficient enough to form a belief as to the rest of theallegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.Pa5

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEF9. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint.First Cause of Action – Negligence10. Defendants repeat and reallege Defendants' answers to paragraphs 1-9 of theComplaint as it fully set forth herein.11. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint.12. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.13. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.14. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.15. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of theComplaint.16. Defendants deny having knowledge or information sufficient enough to form a beliefas to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint and therefore, leaves plaintiffto her proofs.17. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.18. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.19. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.20. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.21. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint.22. Defendants deny having knowledge or information sufficient enough to form a beliefas to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint and therefore, leaves plaintiffto her proofs.Affirmative Defenses23. No duty is owed to Plaintiff because Plaintiff was a trespasser, not an invited party,on Defendants' residence24. Comparative negligence25. Assumption of riskRespectfully Submitted,Papa Bear and Momma BearDated: February 9, 2016Pa6

SAMPLE FORMAL BRIEFPapa and Momma Bear44 Warm Welcome AvenueLawrenceville, NJ 08544Goldi Locksvs.Superior Court ofNew JerseyLaw DivisionMercer CountyPapa Bear and Momma BearDocket # L-0000-00PlaintiffDefendant(s)TO:NOTICE OF MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENTGoldi Locks28 Far Away RoadNeverland, New Jersey 08611PLAINTIFF:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the original of this pleading, seekingsummary judgment and the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint withprejudice and without costs as against defendants, has been filedwith the Clerk of Court in accord with Court Rules; andPLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendants shall rely upon theirStatement of Material Facts and Certification in support of motionfor summary judgment, along with exhibits attached thereto; andPLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this motion i

judgment and to remand the case back to the trial court for a trial on damages. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants on January 11, 2016 (Pa2 – Pa4).1 Defendants filed an 1 P