IRAC
What does each letter stand for in IRAC
I- Issue
R- Rule
A- Analysis
C-Conclusion
Zorro leaves his valuable cape with the clockroom attendant at a restaurant. When he returns, the attendant wrongfully refuses to hand over the cape, and threatens to burn it. Zorro stays for two hours before he gets the cape back. Can he successfully claim false imprisonment?
Yes. A false imprisonment claim requires intentional confinement to a bounded area. The restraint needn't be physical; it can be accomplished by duress. Wrongfully keeping the plaintiff's valuable property is regarded as one type of duress that qualifies.
Which of the following statements about implied assumption of risk is least accurate?
(A) It must be voluntary.
(B) Many jurisdictions now regard it as comparable to comparative negligence.
(C) It must be manifested to the defendant.
(D) The plaintiff must have understood the risk.
Answer (C) is correct. The defendant need not have been aware of the plaintiff's assumption of risk at the time of the injury, and the plaintiff need not have communicated this assumption of risk to the defendant.
Answer (A) is incorrect. Voluntariness is an element of assumption of risk.
Answer (B) is incorrect because many jurisdictions have merged implied assumption of risk together with comparative negligence. Both doctrines reduce, but do not eliminate, the plaintiff's recovery.
Answer (D) is incorrect. Knowledge of the risk is an element of assumption of risk.
Should you use analogical reasoning or rule-based reasoning on your exams?
Both. A strong answers analyzes each element of the rule, connects the rule with the facts of the test question, and compares and contrasts cases on the same issue.
How can a Plaintiff and Defendant use the same precedent to support their arguments?
By analogizing or distinguishing. A Plaintiff and a Defendant can both use the same precedent. A Plaintiff or a Defendant can employ an analogy and argue that the precedent and case-at-bar are legally similar, thus stare decisis applies. A Plaintiff or a Defendant can also draw a distinction and argue that the precedent and the case-at-bar are dissimilar, and this stare decisis would not apply.
From Legal Analysis, Chapter 3
If your rule statement has 4 parts, how many "mini-IRACs" should you have?
4- each part of the rule should have its own mini-IRAC.
Anne Boleyn enters the hospital to have her sinuses drained. While she is anesthetized, her doctor, Ryno Plasty, removes her eleventh finger (which doesn't function anyway), as well. Has Plasty committed a tort? If so, which tort?
Yes, he's committed Battery. The focus here is on the role consent plays in battery. Consent is a valid defense almost every tort, but only within the scope of the conduct the victim consented to, or conduct closely related to that consent. Here, Anne gave her consent to having her sinuses drained. Removing her extra finger would be well outside the scope of her consent, and since no emergency situation existed to justify it, Plasty will be liable for battery.
Which of the following scenarios best illustrates the tort of battery?
(A) Jorge gets on a train during rush hour and is pushed into Pedro by the oncoming rush of people attempting to get on the train.
(B) Gary fouls off a curveball during a regular season game against the Florida Marlins and the baseball strikes a spectator in the eye.
(C) Lawrence tackles Joe during a football game, causing Joe's leg to break.
(D) At halftime, all the players return to their locker rooms where quarterback Bill, in a rage, throws his helmet at Kevin's head.
Answer (D) is correct. Bill intended to cause harm to Kevin by throwing a helmet at his head. Kevin did not consent to any physical contact of that kind, because they were not engaged in a contact sport at the time.
Answer (A) is incorrect. A claim for battery requires intent. Jorge did not intend to hit Pedro.
Answer (B) is incorrect for the reason just given.
Answer (C) is incorrect. Joe purposely engaged in a game of football and therefore consented to be tackled. Although consent can be understood as an affirmative defense, courts interpret it as precluding a prima facie claim of battery when the plaintiff was injured in a game.
How is Rule Based Reasoning different from Analogical Reasoning?
Rule based reasoning structures an argument around a rule. Analogical reasoning focuses on facts and requires a lawyer to induce a conclusion by establishing a legal analogy between case law and a client's facts. Rule based reasoning requires a lawyer to apply a set of facts to a stated legal premise, like a statute or common-law rule. The application of facts to a rule allows a lawyer to deduce a conclusion.
From Legal Analysis, Chapter 4
To clear some boulders out of her field, Farmer sets off dynamite charges. Unexpectedly, the explosion causes vibrations that extend to Neighbor’s land, damaging a water well. Can Neighbor recover for trespass?
No. Trespass is usually limited to physical intrusions. Nonphysical intrusions such as vibrations are usually treated as a nuisance rather than a trespass.
What does each letter stand for in CREAC?
C- Conclusion
R- Rule
E- Explanation of the law
A- Application of the law
C-Conclusion
Count Dracula enters the hospital for an operation to correct internal hemorrhaging. During the operation he receives a transfusion of blood infected with the HIV virus, and as a result he contracts AIDS. Can he successfully sue the hospital in strict product liability?
No. Strict liability can only be imposed for the sale of defective products, not services. Blood transfusions are generally considered a service, not a product, and as a result strict liability cannot be imposed for infusion with infected blood.
Which of the following is not an example of a behavior that can constitute conversion?
(A) Wrongful transfer
(B) Negligent alteration
(C) Theft
(D) Bona fide purchase of stolen goods
Answer (B) is correct. Conversion is an intentional tort, based on the defendant's intent to perform an act that interferes with a plaintiff's right of possession. Intentional alteration of a chattel—for example, spray-painting it with graffiti—could constitute conversion. Negligent alteration is merely negligence.
Answer (A) is incorrect because wrongful transfer—for example, using someone else's chattel as collateral for a loan and then causing the chattel to be seized by the creditor—can constitute conversion.
Answer (C) is incorrect because theft—the crime of taking something that isn't yours with the intent of depriving the owner of possession—fulfills the elements of conversion.
Answer (D) is incorrect because even a good-faith purchaser can fulfill the elements of conversion when the chattel was stolen from the true owner.
If your exam is testing you on a rule that has 4 elements, how many paragraphs should you split your analysis section into?
4- one paragraph for each element!!!
Pilot is flying her two-engine jet fron New York to Boston. Suddenly, one engine stops working, and Pilot is unable to restart it. Pilot knows that there is a good, but not 100%, chance that she will be able to continue on just the other engine until Boston. However, she decides that it would be more prudent to make an emergency landing sooner. There are no commercial airfields around, so she lands in a meadow owned by Farmer. There is no measurable economic harm done to the meadow. Farmer sues Pilot for trespass. May Farmer recover anything?
No. Under the doctrine of "private necessity," a person has a privilege to enter another's property if this is necessary to protect herself (or another) from serious harm. This privilege constitutes a complete defense to Farmer's trespass action.
How does a rule frame legal analysis?
Rules frame legal analysis because a lawyer will apply the rule(s) of law to a set of facts presented by a client to predict how a court or tribunal would likely rule in the matter. Depending on the rule, a lawyer may need to provide case explanations to illustrate or prove the rule.
From Legal Analysis, chapter 2.
The Heerr Chick-Chick Chicken Store is on premises rented by the Stately Real Estate Company. Here stages a publicity stunt whereby it hires a helicopter to drop chickens over the parking lot, foolishly anticipating that the chickens will drop harmlessly to the ground. The chickens fall, Splat! on the parking lot. One chicken lands on Renee, injuring her. Will Heerr be liable to Renee?
Yes. Lessees of property are liable to the same extent as landowners. Thus, since Renee is an invitee, Heerr must warn her of known dangers ("Warning: Falling Chickens") and inspect the premises to make them safe for her. Dropping a chicken on her head would constitute a breach of Heerr's duty.
Which of the following is a criticism of the actual cause element of the prima facie case for negligence most likely to be endorsed by an economic analyst?
(A) It is potentially unfair to plaintiffs as a group.
(B) It is potentially unfair to defendants as a group.
(C) Unlike duty, breach, and injury, the cause element requires litigants to prove something that cannot be known until the costly expenditure of discovery begins.
(D) It impedes deterrence of wasteful conduct by permitting defendants to prevail even when plaintiffs can prove defendants engaged in this wasteful conduct.
Answer (D) is correct. Economic analysis emphasizes deterrence. Each element of the prima facie case functions to give the defendant a chance to not pay damages. Thus the causation element, considered only after the plaintiff has proved breach, permits a defendant to avoid liability after the plaintiff proves that it engaged in conduct that society condemns as wasteful and destructive. Lack of liability = less deterrence.
Answer (A) is incorrect. In general, economic analysis is not interested in fairness.
Answer (B) is incorrect for the same reason.
Answer (C) is incorrect. Discovery is costly, but causation is not different from breach in this respect, a point that Answer (C) denies.
You have 3 essays and 10 MCQs on your exam. The exam is 3 hours long.
Essay 1 is worth 50 points.
Essay 2 is worth 25 points
Essay 3 is worth 25 points.
MCQs are worth 5 points each.
How should you allocate your time?
1 hour for essay one
30 minutes for essay 2
30 minutes for essay 3
1 hour for MCQs (6 minutes per question)
In response to a gasoline shortage, a statute is enacted prohibiting auto travel on Sundays except for emergencies. Notwithstanding, Driver drives his car on Sunday to play golf. On the way back, he strikes Pedestrian, causing severe injuries. Can Pedestrian recover based solely on a showing that Driver violated the statute banning Sunday driving?
No. Violation of a statute establishes breach only where (i) the statute was enacted for the purpose of preventing the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff; and (ii) the plaintiff is a member of the class sought to be protected by the statute. Neither of these conditions appears here; the statute was enacted for the apparent purpose of conserving gasoline, not protecting pedestrians against highway injuries.
When there is a majority rule and a minorty rule, but the question does not specifiy which the jurisdiction in question applies, which should you discuss on your exam.
Both, never assume that the jurisidiction you are in follows the majority rule, discuss the outcome in the majority jurisidition and the minority jurisdiction.
Guy Fawkes carefully burns a pile of leaves in his backyard; he moves all flammable objects away from the area, keeps a fire extinguisher on hand, and douses the flames occasionally to keep them under control. However, a strong gust of wind blows up, carrying sparks 50' to a neighbor's shed, setting it afire. The neighbor sues Guy, claiming he's strictly liable for the damage here. Is the neighbor correct?
No. The use of fire is not considered an abnormally dangerous activity, and thus not a source of strict liability. Therefore, the neighbor would have to prove Guy was negligent. Since the facts here indicate he was careful, the neighbor will not recover.
Which of the following 15-year-old individuals who injured a plaintiff named Moolalala through arguably negligent conduct is most likely to be held to the adult reasonable person standard of care, rather than a child standard?
(A) Dennis: Without having good control of the wheel he drove a snowmobile into Moolalala, knocking her down.
(B) Dee: He mishandled a rifle while hunting, causing it to discharge and fire a bullet into Moolalala's leg.
(C) Mac: He built a campfire to roast marshmallows and then was unable to put it out; the fire burned Moolalala's property.
(D) Charlie: Aware that the brakes on his bicycle had not been working well, he nevertheless bicycled down a steep hill and collided into Moolalala.
Answer (A) is correct. The question tests the “adult activity” exception to the child standard of care. For no particularly logical reason, courts tend to limit this exception to the operation of motor vehicles.
Answer (B) is incorrect because courts that hear negligence claims simply do not seem to think using a firearm is an adult activity. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but the motor vehicles category of Answer A is much more accepted.
Answer (C) is incorrect because setting a fire is not an adult activity; children do it fairly often.
Answer (D) is incorrect because riding a bicycle is an unexceptional activity for a 15-year-old.
What are the two reasons you shouldn't skip MCQs?
1. You might forget on teh answer sheet and start filling out the bubbles for the wrong question.
2. You don't get penalized for the wrong answer. You get points for correct answers, so guessing is better than leaving it blank.
In a contributory negligence state, Pedestrian entered the crosswalk at an intersection while reading a newspaper. He did not realize that he was walking against the traffic signal and into the path of oncoming traffic.
Brenda was driving down the street at an excessive speed. She would have been able to avoid Pedestrian, but for the fact that she glanced away from the road while lighting a cigarette. As a result, her car hit Pedestrian and knocked him unconscious. Assume that had Pedestrian looked up he would have seen Brenda’s car coming and would have been able to get out of the way until just before the impact. Is Brenda subject to liability to Pedestrian?
No. Pedestrian placed himself in a position of inattentive peril (he would have been able to get out of the way had he looked up). In such cases, Pedestrian is barred by his contributory negligence unless the defendant had actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s peril. Brenda did not, and hence the last clear chance doctrine does not apply.