advanced narrative theory seminar. According to Brooks, this young woman was so imbued with narrative prescience that she could accurately predict the plot trajectories of novels, anticipating the endings, by a close reading of the opening pages. That is, she could decode theplot structure embedded within the story from the outset of the telling. The point of the anecdote is that, as Michael Roemer suggests, stories are already over before they begin and, especially in law, are written to justify a predetermined or desired outcome.
I have had similar experiences while teaching torts and criminal law courses. First-year law students in torts and criminal law inevitably observe that they can predict the outcome of a case by a close reading of the beginning of the opinion where the court tells the factual story framing the legal analysis that follows.
Here, for example, are the opening paragraphs from
Coblyn v. Kennedy
, 1 an intentional torts case taught early in the first semester. There are two related legal issues in the case. The first issue is whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff can recover for the tort of false imprisonment. The story the court tells, like most judicial storytelling, is designed to appear plotless, merely a chronology or recitation of the facts determined at trial. The story is told exclusively from the perspective of the plaintiff. The court frames the plot narrowly to fit the legal issue: defendant contends that, as a matter of law, âno unlawful restraint [was] imposed by force or threat upon the plaintiffâs freedom of movement.â The court retells this portion of the story and embeds a plot within its telling:
We state the pertinent evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. On March 5, 1965, the plaintiff went to Kennedyâs, Inc. (Kennedyâs), a store in Boston. He was seventy years of age and about five feet four inches in height. He was wearing a woolen shirt, which was âopen at the neck,â a topcoat and a hat. âAround his neckâ he wore an ascot which he had âpurchased previously at Filenes.â He proceeded to the second floor of Kennedyâs to purchase a sport coat. He removed his hat, topcoat and ascot, putting the ascot in his pocket. After purchasing a sport coat and leaving it for alterations, he put on his hat and coat and walked downstairs. Just prior to exiting through the outside door of the store, he stopped, took the ascot out of his pocket, put it around his neck, and knotted it. The knot was visible âabove the lapels of his shirt.â The only stop that the plaintiff made on the first floor was immediately in front of the exit in order to put on his ascot.
Just as the plaintiff stepped out of the door, the defendant Goss, an employee, âloomed upâ in front of him with his hand up and said: âStop. Where did you get that scarf?â The plaintiff responded, âWhy?â Goss firmly grasped the plaintiffâs arm and said: âYou better go back and see the manager.â Another employee was standing next tohim. Eight or ten other people were standing around and were staring at the plaintiff. The plaintiff then said, âYes, Iâll go back in the storeâ and proceeded to do so. As he and Goss went upstairs to the second floor, the plaintiff paused twice because of chest and back pains. After reaching the second floor, the salesman from whom he had purchased the coat recognized him and asked what the trouble was. The plaintiff then asked: âWhy [did] these two gentlemen stop me?â The salesman confirmed that the plaintiff had purchased a sport coat and that the ascot belonged to him. 2
The salesman became alarmed by the plaintiffâs appearance and the store nurse was called. She brought the plaintiff into the nurseâs room and gave him a soda mint tablet. As a direct result of the emotional upset caused by the incident, the plaintiff was hospitalized and treated for a