IRAC Forum

[Extension_Cord]

I know this is extremely dumb, but does anyone have a sample issue spotter IRAC example? I dont really care as much about the subject-matter I just want to see how a well written IRAC flows, not a simplified version. Yes this is 1L pre-final exam anxiety, and I probably know enough to do it on my own but I crave reassurance.

In an analysis, you dont argue both sides, you just pick a side and support it? This is something that legitimately throws me off because some people at my school claim its best to argue both sides to show the professor you know the material, but Steven Finz (Sums and Substances Torts Audio CD) says to pick a side and suport it "because because because because because." My professor has only told us her exam is an issue spotter exam that will be on negligence and that we will need to write in IRAC form.

T-minus 10 days and freaking out over 50% of my grade!

Help!

[FeelTheHeat]

I know this is extremely dumb, but does anyone have a sample issue spotter IRAC example? I dont really care as much about the subject-matter I just want to see how a well written IRAC flows, not a simplified version. Yes this is 1L pre-final exam anxiety, and I probably know enough to do it on my own but I crave reassurance.

In an analysis, you dont argue both sides, you just pick a side and support it? This is something that legitimately throws me off because some people at my school claim its best to argue both sides to show the professor you know the material, but Steven Finz (Sums and Substances Torts Audio CD) says to pick a side and suport it "because because because because because." My professor has only told us her exam is an issue spotter exam that will be on negligence and that we will need to write in IRAC form.

T-minus 10 days and freaking out over 50% of my grade!

Help!

lulz

[Extension_Cord]

I know this is extremely dumb, but does anyone have a sample issue spotter IRAC example? I dont really care as much about the subject-matter I just want to see how a well written IRAC flows, not a simplified version. Yes this is 1L pre-final exam anxiety, and I probably know enough to do it on my own but I crave reassurance.

In an analysis, you dont argue both sides, you just pick a side and support it? This is something that legitimately throws me off because some people at my school claim its best to argue both sides to show the professor you know the material, but Steven Finz (Sums and Substances Torts Audio CD) says to pick a side and suport it "because because because because because." My professor has only told us her exam is an issue spotter exam that will be on negligence and that we will need to write in IRAC form.

T-minus 10 days and freaking out over 50% of my grade!

Help!

lulz

Yeah man I need to relax.

[StyrofoamWar]

I know this is extremely dumb, but does anyone have a sample issue spotter IRAC example? I dont really care as much about the subject-matter I just want to see how a well written IRAC flows, not a simplified version. Yes this is 1L pre-final exam anxiety, and I probably know enough to do it on my own but I crave reassurance.

In an analysis, you dont argue both sides, you just pick a side and support it? This is something that legitimately throws me off because some people at my school claim its best to argue both sides to show the professor you know the material, but Steven Fintz (Sums and Substances Torts Audio CD) says to pick a side and suport it "because because because because because." My professor has only told us her exam is an issue spotter exam that will be on negligence and that we will need to write in IRAC form.

T-minus 10 days and freaking out over 50% of my grade!

Help!

You absolutely need to argue both sides. The CD you're listening to wants you to pick a side, support it, and then DO THE SAME THING for the other side. It's not about getting a right answer, it's about showing you understand the process.

Extremely Straightforward Made Up Fact pattern:

P is walking down a busy street texting on his phone and not paying attention to where he is going. D is driving his car along 50 mph over the speed limit while talking on his phone. While still texting, P begins to cross a street. D is unable to stop in times and smashes into P, who sustains serious injuries.


IRAC Analysis of Negligence:

The first issue to address is whether P has a claim for negligence against D. In order to establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must establish (1) duty (2) breach (3) actual cause (4) proximate cause and (5) damages.

In order to show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, the plaintiff must show that [insert your class's definition of duty here, something about reasonably foreseeable? Haven't taken torts in a while]. Here, the plaintiff with argue that D owed him a duty of care because D was operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway. Roadways are frequently flanked on both sides by sidewalks, which pedestrians frequently use to go from point A to point B. Additionally, pedestrians frequently need to cross streets in order to reach their destinations, thus making it reasonably foreseeable that a pedestrian may step into the road. However, D will argue that no duty was owed to P because (insert counter argument here, I honestly can't think of one, probably because I don't remember the exactly rules for duty, sorry). In this case, P most likely succeed in establishing that D owed him a duty because it was reasonably foreseeable that a pedestrian might cross a road in front of D while D was driving down the road.

Assuming P can establish that D owed a duty of care, P must next establish that D breached this duty. In order to show that a defendant breached a duty of care, the plaintiff must show that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. In determining whether someone acted reasonably under the circumstances, courts conduct an objective analysis, in which they ask how a reasonably prudent person would behave under the same circumstances. Here, P will argue that D did not exercise reasonable care under the circumstances because the facts indicate that D was driving 50 MPH over the speed limit while in a busy area of a city. P will argue that a reasonable person who sees many pedestrians and other cars nearby in the midst of a busy city area will frequently drive significantly SLOWER than the speed limit in order to give themselves additional time to react in case someone makes an unexpected move in front of the driver's car in order to prevent potential accidents. D may attempt to counter that people routinely exceed the speed limit when driving and thus he was not in breach of a standard of care. However, D will likely be unsuccessful in making this point because the facts clearly indicate that the area in question was a "busy" area, and thus a reasonable person would likely be additionally cautious in order to prevent potential accidents, rather than speeding up and exceeding the speed limit by 50 MPH.

ETC ETC ETC

hope this helps. Totally BSed my way thru the law for negligence, so don't put any stock in my rule statements. Mostly was trying to write enough to see how it might get organized/flow from step to step for you.

And honestly, I just really don't want to study for corporations anymore. Eff.

[AugustaMasters]

I know this is extremely dumb, but does anyone have a sample issue spotter IRAC example? I dont really care as much about the subject-matter I just want to see how a well written IRAC flows, not a simplified version. Yes this is 1L pre-final exam anxiety, and I probably know enough to do it on my own but I crave reassurance.

In an analysis, you dont argue both sides, you just pick a side and support it? This is something that legitimately throws me off because some people at my school claim its best to argue both sides to show the professor you know the material, but Steven Finz (Sums and Substances Torts Audio CD) says to pick a side and suport it "because because because because because." My professor has only told us her exam is an issue spotter exam that will be on negligence and that we will need to write in IRAC form.

T-minus 10 days and freaking out over 50% of my grade!

Help!

No, argue both sides.

[Extension_Cord]

I know this is extremely dumb, but does anyone have a sample issue spotter IRAC example? I dont really care as much about the subject-matter I just want to see how a well written IRAC flows, not a simplified version. Yes this is 1L pre-final exam anxiety, and I probably know enough to do it on my own but I crave reassurance.

In an analysis, you dont argue both sides, you just pick a side and support it? This is something that legitimately throws me off because some people at my school claim its best to argue both sides to show the professor you know the material, but Steven Fintz (Sums and Substances Torts Audio CD) says to pick a side and suport it "because because because because because." My professor has only told us her exam is an issue spotter exam that will be on negligence and that we will need to write in IRAC form.

T-minus 10 days and freaking out over 50% of my grade!

Help!

You absolutely need to argue both sides. The CD you're listening to wants you to pick a side, support it, and then DO THE SAME THING for the other side. It's not about getting a right answer, it's about showing you understand the process.

Extremely Straightforward Made Up Fact pattern:

P is walking down a busy street texting on his phone and not paying attention to where he is going. D is driving his car along 50 mph over the speed limit while talking on his phone. While still texting, P begins to cross a street. D is unable to stop in times and smashes into P, who sustains serious injuries.


IRAC Analysis of Negligence:

The first issue to address is whether P has a claim for negligence against D. In order to establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must establish (1) duty (2) breach (3) actual cause (4) proximate cause and (5) damages.

In order to show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, the plaintiff must show that [insert your class's definition of duty here, something about reasonably foreseeable? Haven't taken torts in a while]. Here, the plaintiff with argue that D owed him a duty of care because D was operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway. Roadways are frequently flanked on both sides by sidewalks, which pedestrians frequently use to go from point A to point B. Additionally, pedestrians frequently need to cross streets in order to reach their destinations, thus making it reasonably foreseeable that a pedestrian may step into the road. However, D will argue that no duty was owed to P because (insert counter argument here, I honestly can't think of one, probably because I don't remember the exactly rules for duty, sorry). In this case, P most likely succeed in establishing that D owed him a duty because it was reasonably foreseeable that a pedestrian might cross a road in front of D while D was driving down the road.

Assuming P can establish that D owed a duty of care, P must next establish that D breached this duty. In order to show that a defendant breached a duty of care, the plaintiff must show that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. In determining whether someone acted reasonably under the circumstances, courts conduct an objective analysis, in which they ask how a reasonably prudent person would behave under the same circumstances. Here, P will argue that D did not exercise reasonable care under the circumstances because the facts indicate that D was driving 50 MPH over the speed limit while in a busy area of a city. P will argue that a reasonable person who sees many pedestrians and other cars nearby in the midst of a busy city area will frequently drive significantly SLOWER than the speed limit in order to give themselves additional time to react in case someone makes an unexpected move in front of the driver's car in order to prevent potential accidents. D may attempt to counter that people routinely exceed the speed limit when driving and thus he was not in breach of a standard of care. However, D will likely be unsuccessful in making this point because the facts clearly indicate that the area in question was a "busy" area, and thus a reasonable person would likely be additionally cautious in order to prevent potential accidents, rather than speeding up and exceeding the speed limit by 50 MPH.

ETC ETC ETC

hope this helps. Totally BSed my way thru the law for negligence, so don't put any stock in my rule statements. Mostly was trying to write enough to see how it might get organized/flow from step to step for you.

And honestly, I just really don't want to study for corporations anymore. Eff.

This is really helpful, thanks!

[Legen..waitforit]

tagged for later review

[californiabeauar]

word

[odoylerulez]

Generally speaking, most questions will require you to analyze all points-of-view in order to answer the question. Most posters here have said "both sides" - but many prompts may have more than two lines of analysis, so be careful not to restrict yourself here.

Pay specific attention to the question that you are asked. If it's clear that the professor wants a one-sided analysis, you give a one-sided analysis, regardless of what anyone here says. Some professors will take off points for refusing to answer the question or questions as asked. Do not change a question for the sole purpose for showing off how much you know.

For seven out of my eight finals 1L year, all questions required an analysis of more than one point-of-view. One of my finals contained quite a few questions that had a more restricted scope. Watch out for these.


Basically, you'll need to argue all points of view on most questions, but the general advice of "argue both sides" is completely irrelevant until you've actually read the prompt and the questions.