BUL 5810 The IRAC Method, Part I ⅈ

The IRAC
Method, Part I

Under
the common law tradition, the law is embodied in legal cases. To get an
understanding of how law applies to a particular fact setting, you may have to
review a dozen or more cases. Subtle differences in factual situations may
dictate different outcomes. However, you may have – or soon will – notice that
law cases are often quite long, poorly written, and unclear.

In order to put some structure on the sometimes
difficult process of identifying applicable law, legal educators recommend the
IRAC method. IRAC is an acronym for:

1.Identify
the Issue

2. State the
applicable legalRule

3. Apply the
legal rule to your facts to answer the question raised in the issue

4. Draw a Conclusion based on your analysis

This
format works rather well in that it keeps you focus on what’s important. Here
is how I would apply IRAC to a famous personal injury case involved a commuter,
Palsgraf, waiting for a train in the 1920s (Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad
Co.).

IRAC analysis
of Palsgraf case.

Summary of
Facts

While
standing at the far end of the train platform, a manager carrying a small
package wrapped in newspaper was rushing to catch a train that had begun to
move away from the platform. As the manager attempted to jump aboard the moving
train, he seemed unsteady and about to fall. A railroad guard on the train car
reached forward to grab him, and another guard on the platform pushed him from
behind to help him board the train. In the process, the manager’s package fell
on the railroad tracks and exploded because it contained fireworks. The
percussive force of the explosion caused scales at the other end of the train
platform to fall on Palsgraf, who was injured as a result.

Palsgraf sued
the railroad company for her injuries.

Issue

Was
it foreseeable that pushing a man could cause injury to a person standing some
distance away?

Rule

An actor is
only responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his/her
actions.

Application

While
pushing/pulling an individual onto a moving train may be dangerous, it is not
foreseeable that pushing the individual could cause harm to someone standing
far away. Moreover, while it may have been foreseeable that the individual
might drop his package as a result, it was not foreseeable that the package
would explode. Therefore, the train employee’s actions were not a legal cause
of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Conclusion The railroad
wins..0001pt 149pt;”>IRAC
Instructions Part IIThe
biggest stumbling block was the issue identification. In issue statements there
are different levels of sophistication. At the lowest level are the generic
issue statements. They are correct, but they do not provide any/much of an
indication of what the plaintiff must prove. These types of statements are ones
a lawyer might give to an unsophisticated client and they include: “Is the
defendant liable for the injury”, “is there a valid and enforceable contract”
or “did the defendant trade in violation of insider trading prohibitions?”
These generic responses received 15 points.Fireworks
case:For
July 4 the county government banned all fireworks display due to uncommonly dry
conditions. However, Tom and Jerry, who prided themselves on the elaborateness
of their fireworks show, refused to comply. They took elaborate precautions to
ensure safety. They cleared several acres of land and had a large tank car full
of water waiting in case of emergency.For
the first half hour the show went off without incident. However, at that point
due to Tom’s miscalculation, one of their large sky rockets veered off
horizontally rather than skyward. It came to rest after hitting a medium-size
cedar tree half a mile away. The impact with the tree, which was almost
completely rotted through, toppled the tree. The tree, which would not have
fallen had it been healthy, should have been removed by the landowner at least
six months earlier.The
tree, located near the top of a hill, fell towards the street where it impacted
a park car. Ruth had parked her car on this hillside street, but had
absentmindedly forgotten to put on the parking brake. The impact from the tree
caused the car to roll down the hill. An engaged parking brake would have
stopped the car before it could travel any significant distance. However,
without an engaged parking brake, the car gathered speed and momentum. After
going approximately 400 meters, it crashed into a utility pole knocking down an
electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignited a grass fire. The fire
spread rapidly in the extremely dry conditions and eventually ignited several
residential houses. Spectators at the fireworks display noticed the fire and
alerted Tom and Jerry who immediately mobilized their tank car to slow the
spread of the fire until the fire department’s arrival. Nonetheless, one house
was completely destroyed and two other houses suffered damages in excess of
$150,000 each.Analyze
Tom and Jerry’s liability for the damage to the three houses. You may assume
that the houses were within a two-mile radius of the fireworks display.