Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Kane v. Landscape Structures, Inc.
Georgia Court of Appeals
709 S.E.2d 876 (2011)
In Kane versus Landscape Structures, we'll see what elements a defendant must prove to show that a plaintiff assumes the risk of injury.
Nine year old Stephen Kane was at a playground that had a piece of equipment known as the infant maze.
The infant maze was designed by landscape structures for children under three years old. The structure was covered by a pitched roof that was about seven feet tall. Older children at the playground would frequently climb to the top of the infant maze roof, and then jump off the roof onto the ground.
There were no warning signs on the infant maze that explained the danger associated with climbing on the structure.
However, Kane's mother had previously told Kane that it was dangerous to climb on things, and Kane didn't think that his mother would approve of him climbing on the infant maze.
Kane attempted to climb the infant maze, but he fell before he got on the roof. Kane suffered serious injuries from his fall.
Kane's parents and Kane sued landscape structures for negligent design and for failing to warn about the dangers associated with climbing the structure.
Kane admitted that he knew that the infant maze wasn't designed for kids his age, and he also acknowledged that people shouldn't climb on the roof of the maze. Landscape Structures moved for summary judgment, claiming that Kane had assumed the risk of falling from the infant maze when he tried to climb on the structure. The trial court granted landscape structures motion for summary judgment. The Kanes appealed to the Georgia court of appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/kane-v-landscape-structures-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/kane-v-landscape-structures-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Kane v. Landscape Structures, Inc.
Georgia Court of Appeals
709 S.E.2d 876 (2011)
In Kane versus Landscape Structures, we'll see what elements a defendant must prove to show that a plaintiff assumes the risk of injury.
Nine year old Stephen Kane was at a playground that had a piece of equipment known as the infant maze.
The infant maze was designed by landscape structures for children under three years old. The structure was covered by a pitched roof that was about seven feet tall. Older children at the playground would frequently climb to the top of the infant maze roof, and then jump off the roof onto the ground.
There were no warning signs on the infant maze that explained the danger associated with climbing on the structure.
However, Kane's mother had previously told Kane that it was dangerous to climb on things, and Kane didn't think that his mother would approve of him climbing on the infant maze.
Kane attempted to climb the infant maze, but he fell before he got on the roof. Kane suffered serious injuries from his fall.
Kane's parents and Kane sued landscape structures for negligent design and for failing to warn about the dangers associated with climbing the structure.
Kane admitted that he knew that the infant maze wasn't designed for kids his age, and he also acknowledged that people shouldn't climb on the roof of the maze. Landscape Structures moved for summary judgment, claiming that Kane had assumed the risk of falling from the infant maze when he tried to climb on the structure. The trial court granted landscape structures motion for summary judgment. The Kanes appealed to the Georgia court of appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/kane-v-landscape-structures-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/kane-v-landscape-structures-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
![Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U86aLpipVaM/mqdefault.jpg "Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I]
European Court of Justice
Case C-362/14 (2015)
European Union regulations strictly control the transfer of personal data from data controlling entities in Europe to countries outside the EU referred to as third countries.
The regulations require third countries to ensure an adequate level of data protection.
In data protection commissioner versus Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximilian Schrems, the European Court of Justice considered whether the United States met this standard. In two thousand, the US and the EU negotiated an agreement called the Safe Harbor Principles to authorize private companies to transfer personal customer data from Europe to the states.
The European Commission issued a decision called an adequacy decision certifying that Safe Harbor guaranteed an adequate level of data protection for European citizens.
However, safe harbor allowed the American government unlimited access to personal data for national security and other purposes.
In two thousand thirteen, former government contractor Edward Snowden leaked information revealing that American security agencies engaged in extensive warrantless data collection and had direct access to the data held by major companies like Google and Facebook.
Austrian citizen, Maximilian Schrems, had a Facebook account. European Facebook users had to contract with Facebook Ireland, a Facebook subsidiary.
Facebook Ireland sent users personal data to Facebook in the US. Following the Snowden league, Shremes filed a complaint with Irelands data protection commissioner, that countrys data supervisory authority. Schrems asked the authority to prohibit Facebook Ireland from transferring his data to the US because US law didnt adequately protect personal data.
The authority rejected Schrems complaint because of safe harbor.
Schrems appealed to Irelands high court, which requested an opinion on the safe harbor decisions validity from the European Court of Justice.
The European Court invalidated the decision and referred the case back to the authority.
Thereafter, the US and EU negotiated a new agreement called Privacy Shield. The European Commission issued an adequacy decision approving Privacy Shield. Privacy Shield was similar to Safe Harbor, but created an ombudsperson to investigate data privacy complaints from European citizens.
Again, however, Privacy Shield allowed the federal government unlimited access to personal data for national security reasons.
Schrems refiled his complaint. The authority referred the case to Irelands high court, which again referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries")
