Students often use IRAC to get through an issue on their law school exam. However, on some issues, or causes of action, it is wise for a student to break apart the issue into smaller IRACs, in order to not create a really long and confusing, and wordy IRAC. Breaking the larger IRAC or issue into a smaller IRAC makes it easier for the grader to grade the exam and also easier for the student to organize their thoughts and produce an analysis that is on point. One great example is writing a Negligence answer. Here is an example of what a student may be tempted to do:

Negligence

Is D liable for Negligence?

For a D to be liable for negligence, the P must prove that there was a duty, breach, actual causation, proximate causation, and damages.

Here, because D did X, Y, and Z, P would argue that D had a duty to do A, B, and C. However, D would argue that because G, H, and I happened, D did not have a duty to do A, B, nor C. In addition, P would argue that because D did J, K, and L, D breached his duty…

Therefore, D is liable for negligence.

However, the student can easily gloss over additional rules that go toward each of those elements. There are additional rules for duty and for all of the other elements for negligence. Here is a better way to layout Negligence as an issue:

Negligence

Is D liable for Negligence?

For a D to be liable for negligence, the P must prove that there was a duty, breach, actual causation, proximate causation, and damages.

(a) Duty

Did D have a duty?

A D has a duty to…

Here, because D did X, Y, and Z, P would argue that D had a duty to do A, B, and C. However, D would argue that because G, H, and I happened, D did not have a duty to do A, B, nor C.

Thus, because of X, D had a duty.

(b) Breach

Did D breach his duty?

A D breaches his duty when…

Here, because D did X, Y, and Z, P would argue that D breached his duty to do A, B, and C. However, D would argue that because G, H, and I happened, D did not breach his duty to do A, B, nor C.

Thus, because of Y, D breached his duty.

(c) Actual Causation

Was D the actual causation of the harm against P?

A D is the actual causation of harm against a P when…

Here, because D did X, Y, and Z, P would argue that D was the actual causation of P’s harm. However, D would argue that because G, H, and I happened, D was not the actual causation of P’s harm.

Thus, because of X and Y, D was the actual causation of P’s harm.

(d) Proximate Causation

Was D the proximate causation of the harm against P?

A D is the proximate causation of harm against a P when…

Here, because D did X, Y, and Z, P would argue that D was the proximate causation of P’s harm. However, D would argue that because G, H, and I happened, D was not the proximate causation of P’s harm.

Thus, because of Z, D was the proximate causation of P’s harm.

(e) Damages

Did P suffer damages?

A P has suffered damages when…

Here, because A, B, and C happened, P would argue that P suffered damages. However, D would argue that because S, T, and W happened, P did not suffer from any damage.

Thus, because of B, P suffered damages.


Therefore, D is liable for negligence.

LST – Law School Tutor assists students in achieving high grades during law school, in order to ensure that they have better academic opportunities during law school and better job opportunities after law school.

For more information, please contact LST at info@law-school-tutor.com