Anthropic’s Claude.ai is the new [AI] kid on the block. Yes, I did link to one of “those” videos.
One of Claude’s unique features is that users can upload file(s) (.pdf, .csv, .txt, and the like) and then ask questions about them. You can’t do this with the free versions of ChatGPT, Bard, or Bing Chat.
So I took Claude for a spin by uploading the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent 107-page .pdf file that resolved two appeals in one decision (Alham Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil Co, Renee Pinsky v Kroger Co of MI, 7/28/2023). The two-case .pdf decision included the reporter’s office syllabus, the majority opinion, a concurrence, and two dissents.
I gave Claude a very complex prompt to outline the opinion:
Draft an opinion outline of the attached court opinion which follows this format and uses these labels.
1.0 Case name(s):
1.1 Court name:
1.2 Docket (or file) number(s):
1.3 Names of Court of Appeals judges (if any):
1.4 Name of Court of Claims judge (if any):
1.5 Name(s) of Circuit Court judge and county (if any):
1.6 Argument (argued) date (if any):
1.7 Decision date:2.0 Statement of facts:
2.1 Relationship or status of parties (include parties’ full names):
2.2 Legally relevant facts (facts tending to prove or disprove an issue before the court):
2.3 Procedurally significant facts (set out the (a) cause of action, (b) the requested relief, and (c) any raised defenses):
2.4 Acronym(s) defined:3.0 Procedural history (the case disposition in the lower courts):
3.1 The lower court(s) decisions:
3.2 Any awarded damages:
3.3 Who appealed and why:4.0 Issues
4.1 Substantive issue(s)
4.1.1 The disputed point(s) of law:
4.1.2 The key case facts related to the disputed point(s) of law (legally relevant facts):4.2 Procedural issue(s)
4.2.1 What is the appealing party claiming that the lower court(s) did wrong:5.0 Judgment: (The court’s final decision about the parties’ rights, and the court’s response to a party’s request for relief. The appellate court will generally either affirm, reverse, or reverse with instructions.)
6.0 Holding: (The statement of law that the court’s answer to the issue.)
6.1 Opinion author:
6.2 Any case law overruled (with citation(s)):
6.3 Any provision of law declared constitutional or unconstitutional:
6.4 Any newly announced legal standard(s):
6.5 List the sentiment for the opinion.
6.6 List the emotion for the opinion.
6.7 List the tone for the opinion.7.0 Rule of law or applied legal principle: (The rule(s) of law that the court applied to determine the parties’ substantive rights. The rule(s) of law could be based on constitution, statute, case law, regulation, or court rule. The rule(s) or legal principle(s) may be expressly stated in the opinion or it may be implied.)
8.0 Reasoning:
8.1 Explain the way the court applied the rules/legal principles to the particular facts to reach its decision. This includes syllogistic application of rules and policy arguments the court used to justify its holding (why the decision was socially
desirable).
8.2 List the opinion’s headings and subheadings in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.9.0 Non-majority opinion(s)
9.1 Name of each concurring (only) judge. Explain their reason(s) for writing separate from the majority opinion:
9.1.1 List the headings and subheadings used in each concurring (only) opinion in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
9.1.2 List the sentiment for each concurring (only) judge’s opinion.
9.1.3 List the emotion for each concurring (only) judge’s opinion.
9.1.4 List the tone for each concurring (only) judge’s opinion.9.2 Name of each dissenting (only) judge. Explain their reason(s) for refusing to join in the majority opinion:
9.2.1 List the headings and subheadings used in each dissenting (only) opinion in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
9.2.2 List the sentiment for each dissenting (only) judge’s opinion.
9.2.3 List the emotion for each dissenting (only) judge’s opinion.
9.2.4 List the tone for each dissenting (only) judge’s opinion.
9.2.5 Quote the sentences the judge used to express their dissent (such as “I respectfully dissent” or “I dissent”).9.3 Name each judge who wrote an opinion that both concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority opinion. Explain the reason(s) for it:
9.3.1 List the headings and subheadings used in each opinion that both concurred in part and dissented in part in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
9.3.2 List the sentiment for each opinion that both concurred and dissented.
9.3.3 List the emotion for each opinion that both concurred and dissented.
9.3.4 List the tone for each opinion that both concurred and dissented.10.0 Nonparticipating jurists
10.1 Name of each judge who did not participate in the decision and outline their reason(s) why:11.0 Additional comments or impressions: (Is the reasoning sound and, if so, how? Is the reasoning contradictory and, if so, how? What could be the decision’s political, economic, or social effects, if any?)
Now bold the labels.
While imperfect to the prompt, Claude did not blink. Claude’s response to a complex prompt about a complex (and long decision) was extraordinary! See for yourself.
Here is an outline of the court opinion:
1.0 Case name(s):
KANDIL-ELSAYED v F & E OIL, INC.
PINSKY v KROGER CO OF MICH
1.1 Court name:
Michigan Supreme Court
1.2 Docket (or file) number(s):
No. 162907
No. 163430
1.3 Names of Court of Appeals judges (if any):
L. ETICA
CAVANAGH
FORT HOOD
1.4 Name of Court of Claims judge (if any):
N/A
1.5 Name(s) of Circuit Court judge and county (if any):
David J. Allen, J., Wayne Circuit Court (Kandil-Elsayed)
Timothy P. Connors, J., Washtenaw Circuit Court (Pinsky)
1.6 Argument (argued) date (if any):
March 2, 2023
1.7 Decision date:
July 28, 2023
2.0 Statement of facts:
2.1 Relationship or status of parties (include parties’ full names):
Plaintiffs: Ahlam Kandil-Elsayed, Renee Pinsky and David Pinsky
Defendants: F&E Oil, Inc., Kroger Co. of Michigan
2.2 Legally relevant facts (facts tending to prove or disprove an issue before the court):
- Kandil-Elsayed slipped and fell on snow/ice in F&E Oil gas station parking lot while walking to pay inside.
- Pinsky tripped over a thin cable strung across a grocery store checkout lane that was closed.
2.3 Procedurally significant facts (set out the (a) cause of action, (b) the requested relief, and (c) any raised defenses):
(a) Negligence action based on premises liability
(b) Damages
(c) Open and obvious danger doctrine (no duty owed to plaintiffs)
2.4 Acronym(s) defined:
N/A
3.0 Procedural history (the case disposition in the lower courts):
3.1 The lower court(s) decisions:
- Trial courts granted summary disposition to defendants based on open and obvious danger doctrine.
- Court of Appeals affirmed both decisions.
3.2 Any awarded damages:
None
3.3 Who appealed and why:
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing open and obvious dangers were effectively unavoidable, creating question of fact.
4.0 Issues
4.1 Substantive issue(s)
4.1.1 The disputed point(s) of law:
- Whether open and obvious danger doctrine should preclude liability as matter of law
- Whether doctrine is part of duty analysis or question of comparative fault
4.1.2 The key case facts related to the disputed point(s) of law (legally relevant facts):
- Visible snow/ice and cable
- Plaintiffs’ knowledge of conditions
- Plaintiffs’ choices to confront conditions
4.2 Procedural issue(s)
4.2.1 What is the appealing party claiming that the lower court(s) did wrong:
Granting summary disposition prematurely rather than allowing case to proceed to trial
5.0 Judgment:
Reversed and remanded both cases for further proceedings.
6.0 Holding:
6.1 Opinion author:
Chief Justice Clement
6.2 Any case law overruled (with citation(s)):
Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512 (2001) (overruled in part)
6.3 Any provision of law declared constitutional or unconstitutional:
None
6.4 Any newly announced legal standard(s):
- Open and obvious danger doctrine relevant to breach/comparative fault, not duty
- Rather than “special aspects” test, ask if land possessor should have anticipated harm
6.5 List the sentiment for the opinion.
Reasonable
6.6 List the emotion for the opinion.
Neutral
6.7 List the tone for the opinion.
Matter-of-fact
7.0 Rule of law or applied legal principle:
Land possessor owes duty to invitees to exercise reasonable care to protect from unreasonable risk of harm from dangerous condition on land.
8.0 Reasoning:
8.1 Explain the way the court applied the rules/legal principles to the particular facts to reach its decision. This includes syllogistic application of rules and policy arguments the court used to justify its holding (why the decision was socially desirable).
The court overruled Lugo v Ameritech Corp, which held that the open and obvious danger doctrine was part of the duty analysis in premises liability cases. The court reasoned that by making the plaintiff’s negligence part of the duty analysis, Lugo improperly allowed the plaintiff’s negligence to completely bar recovery, contrary to Michigan’s comparative fault system. The court overruled Lugo’s “special aspects” test for exceptions to the open and obvious doctrine, finding it departed from the broader “foreseeability” standard in the Second Restatement and generated confusion. Instead, the court held that the open and obvious nature of a hazard is relevant to breach and comparative fault. The land possessor has a duty to invitees to exercise reasonable care, and whether there was a breach depends on if the land possessor should have anticipated harm from an open and obvious condition. This holding better aligns with Michigan’s commitment to comparative fault principles and jury determination of fault.
8.2 List the opinion’s headings and subheadings in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
I. Facts and Procedural History
II. Standard of Review
III. Legal Background
IV. Analysis
V. Application
VI. Conclusion
9.0 Non-majority opinion(s)
9.1 Name of each concurring (only) judge. Explain their reason(s) for writing separate from the majority opinion:
Justice Bernstein (concurring)
He wrote separately to suggest the court consider in the future how the open and obvious danger doctrine should apply to blind or disabled persons. He noted the doctrine currently fails to account for a disabled plaintiff’s different abilities.
9.1.1 List the headings and subheadings used in each concurring (only) opinion in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
N/A – No headings used
9.1.2 List the sentiment for each concurring (only) judge’s opinion.
Hopeful
9.1.3 List the emotion for each concurring (only) judge’s opinion.
Encouraging
9.1.4 List the tone for each concurring (only) judge’s opinion.
Earnest
9.2 Name of each dissenting (only) judge. Explain their reason(s) for refusing to join in the majority opinion:
Justice Zahra (dissenting)
He dissented because he believes the special aspects test is consistent with the Second Restatement’s foreseeability standard, so there was no need to overrule precedent. He emphasized the duty analysis should remain focused on the objective nature of the condition. He argued the majority’s decision would expand liability and destabilize negligence law.
Justice Viviano (dissenting)
He dissented because decades of precedent support the open and obvious doctrine as part of the duty analysis, which the majority incorrectly characterized. He argued the majority misconstrued the doctrine as related to contributory negligence and failed to show why stare decisis should be ignored. He believes the decision will expand liability and lead to more litigation.
9.2.1 List the headings and subheadings used in each dissenting (only) opinion in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
Justice Zahra:
I. II. III.
Justice Viviano:
I. Duty II. Open and Obvious Dangers III. The Significance of the Majority’s Decision IV. The Proper Approach V. Conclusion
9.2.2 List the sentiment for each dissenting (only) judge’s opinion.
Justice Zahra: Critical
Justice Viviano: Alarmed
9.2.3 List the emotion for each dissenting (only) judge’s opinion.
Justice Zahra: Disapproving
Justice Viviano: Upset
9.2.4 List the tone for each dissenting (only) judge’s opinion.
Justice Zahra: Harsh
Justice Viviano: Passionate
9.2.5 Quote the sentences the judge used to express their dissent (such as “I respectfully dissent” or “I dissent”).
Justice Zahra: “I dissent.”
Justice Viviano: “I strongly dissent.”
9.3 Name each judge who wrote an opinion that both concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority opinion. Explain the reason(s) for it:
N/A
10.0 Nonparticipating jurists
10.1 Name of each judge who did not participate in the decision and outline their reason(s) why:
None
11.0 Additional comments or impressions:
The majority lays out a reasoned basis for overturning precedent, though the dissents raise valid concerns about destabilizing established law. It will be important for future decisions to provide guidance on how the new framework applies in practice. The concurring opinion also highlights an issue—treatment of disabled plaintiffs—that may merit future consideration. Overall, the multiple opinions demonstrate the complexity of this area of law.
You’re looking good, Claude. You have my attention.