Glendale Community College Unintentional Business Torts & Negligence HW

Question Description

Thomas Moore was driving an E-Z-Go golf cart to transport guests at a Christmas party. The golf cart did not have lights, but E-Z-Go did not warn against using it on public roads at night. When Moore attempted to cross a road from the club house to the parking lot at 8:30 pm., his gold cart was struck by a vehicle driven by Joseph Maloney who claimed he could not see the cart due to the dark light conditions. Moore was parallelized because of the accident and has sued E-Z-Go. Use F-IRAC to analyze the Strict Product Liability claim.

F-IRAC /5 pts

Facts/ 5 pts

ISSUEWrite an issue statement which identifies the legal basis for this claim and connects it to a pinitol fact . /20 pts

RULE: Based on your issue statement write the rule statement. This statement must cover the general rule, elements and defenses /50 pts

ANALYSIS: Write your analysis. Remember this is a discussion of both sides of liability based on social responsibility, rules, elements and defenses as applied to facts. Following your fact summary, start your analysis with the social engineering underpinning of Escola and Greenman. Here you will either include a general rule statement or follow with a general rule statement before moving on to elements and defenses. It is important to use case authority to help explain the application of the rules, elements and defenses. /100 pts

CONCLULSION: Write a conclusion which mirrors your issue statement and includes a “why statement linking conclusion to an element, defense and fact. /20 pts

More Instructions

F-IRAC: Proper form of FactsISSUE:, RULE:, ANALYSIS:, and CONCLUSION:

Facts: Provide a sufficient fact summary to give detailed analysis

ISSUE: Does it provide the legal theory, party(s) or actor(s) and connect to a fact which triggered the issue?

RULE: State the General Rule, provide elements and defenses in prose. Should not include case citations, names or facts.

ANALYSIS: Start with or present a brief introduction of the Facts and Issue. If it is a complex series of rules to apply consider using an separate paragraph to introduce the rule and elements to be covered. Compare and weave the facts of this case with the General Rule, Elements, Defenses, Prior case law and authority and present any policy issues deemed important to understanding the legal theory.

CONCLUSION: Use proper terminology of legal conclusion using a because or why statement (often a fact and an element or defense which is determinative of conclusion)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Unintentional Business Torts Negligence Negligence Defined: Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages  Failure to live up to a duty of care resulting in legally recognizable injury to another…but what does this mean? How do I know if I have a duty of care?  Intent is not determinative  Does conduct create a risk of injury to another and is that risk foreseeable….by whom?  Reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances anticipate that a risk existed. i.e.  Two boys throwing a hard baseball in a house could reasonable foresee that if the ball were not caught it could break a window or injure people or property.  Those circumstances and what a reasonable person should have anticipated as a risk are always argued in torts cases (discussed from all positions in your analysis)  Contd….. Negligence Defined  Breach of Duty – To whom do I owe this duty of care? Is foreseeability a duty or proximate cause question? The Great Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad (1928)(http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/palsgraf_lirr.htm) Cardoza v. Andrews Both justices are often cited for their differing opinions.  In the Majority opinion this case , written by Cardozo, established that foreseeability was an analysis that should be applied to who the duty is owed. The victim must be in a foreseeable zone of danger for a defendant to owe her a duty of care. Injury without a duty can not be a breach of duty.  In the dissenting opinion Andrews wrote, the Palsgraf is often cited for this proposition, that “Every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others. Such an act occurs. Not only is he wronged to whom harm might reasonably be expected to result, but he also who is in fact injured, even if he be outside what would generally be thought the danger zone.” Negligence Defined  Cause of legally recognized injury must be the result of a breach of duty owed as viewed through a multi step process.  Cause in Fact using the but for test (but for a given act a consequence would not have occurred), or substantial factor. This cause and effect relationship is limitless but must be answered affirmatively and then tempered.  Proximate Cause or legal cause asks if the particular injury was foreseeable and was there a superseding cause – as expressed by Andrews: Was the there, “a natural and continuous sequence between cause and effect. Was the one a substantial factor in producing the other? Was there a direct connection between them, without too many intervening causes? Is the effect of cause on result not too attenuated?…. Is the result too remote from the cause…”, Defenses to a Claim of Negligence:  Failure to prove one or more of the elements of duty, breach, cause, and damages will defeat the claim of negligence  4 affirmative defenses: assumption of risk, Superseding Cause, Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence. Consider the elements of each defense. Legal Analysis The Art of Analyzing a Client’s Case (How Lawyers Think, Talk & Write) IRAC ISSUE: RULE: ANALYSIS: CONCLUSION: F – IRAC • Facts are the prelude: • • • • Who are the plaintiff(s) Who are the defendant(s) What events led to the law suit? Be brief but complete. • What you write for facts will be the basis for what you legal analysis ISSUE ISSUE = Issue Statement • It is always written in the form of a question ISSUE: • Connects a person, place, or action to legal issue. • Example: 1. Did John violate California’s Vehicle Code when he ran the red light? • • • • Identifies the person (John) Identifies place (California) Identifies action (ran red light) Identifies law (California Vehicle Code 2. Whether John violated the California Vehicle Code? • Left out action (ran red light) Dos & Don’ts Dos 1. Always label issue —ISSUE: • ALL CAPS • Underlined/Bold • Colon: 2. Ask the question directly: • Did, Was, Whether, When • Keep issue to one sentence • Use multiple issue statements (questions) if more than one issue exists Dos & Don’ts continued Don’ts 1. Don’t start with, “the issue is when…” 2. Don’t use the compound Question form of “Whether or not…” RULE comes next….. General Rule = • A statement of the law often found in • Statute or • Case Law General Rule of Red Lights All vehicles are required to come to a stop at a red light. Rules Have Elements Elements are like the hash marks of a they help define the meaning of the rule. ruler, • They may be stated in the code or • They may be developed by common law (precedence), administrative law or executive orders Red Light Rule With Elements • All vehicles are required to come to a stop at a red light. • vehicles must stop behind the pedestrian cross walk if a cross walk exits. (Code based element) • To be considered stopped there must be no forward movement for 30 seconds. (Common law based element) Rules Might Have Defenses: Defenses have been established by code or precedence to provide an exception to the rule. Defense to the Red Light Rule: • Emergency vehicles do not have to stop at red lights for 30 seconds. • If you are blocking an emergency vehicle you may proceed with caution across intersection. Dos & Don’ts of Rules: Dos: 1. Always label rule—RULE: • ALL CAPS • Underlined/Bold • colon: 2. State General rule First 3. Identify Elements 4. Provide Defenses Dos & Don’ts contd. Don’ts: • Argue your case in the rule • Conclude with your rule • Identify the case authority for the rule in the rule • Use facts in the rule • List elements or defenses (write in full paragraphs/sentences) ANALYSIS follows: And your chance to argue your case! Analysis is More then the Facts: Questions to Ask: • What is the relationship between the facts and the rules? • Which facts are relevant to the elements? • Are there facts that suggest a Rule defense? Tell the Story: Use the facts to tell the story of how the Rule of law, it’s elements and any possible defenses are called into action. This is where you make your case. (Argument) Dos & Don’ts of Analysis: Dos: 1. Always label rule—ANALYSIS: • ALL CAPS • Underlined/Bold • colon: 2. Start with the general rule as you analyze the facts 2. Analyze relevant rule, elements and defenses 3. Cite leading case if well known & relevant Dos & Don’ts contd. Don’ts: • List facts • Leave out elements and defenses • Draw conclusions Now, on to the CONCLUSION… Conclusions Answer the Question: The conclusion is the answer to your question asked in the issue. Dos & Don’ts of Conclusion: • Dos: 1. Always label rule—CONCLUSION: • ALL CAPS • Underlined/Bold • colon: 1. Use mirror language to your issue. 2. Incorporate a key element or defense in explanation (the why statement) Dos & Don’ts contd. • Don’ts: 1. Argue your case here 2. Introduce new rules here 3. State your opinion as to the fairness of the outcome IRAC: Love it & Live it! RULE ISSUE ANALYSIS CONCLUSION Ah, There is More! An Example of IRAC….. Red Light Woes • A prospective client sits down to meet with you and asks if she can beat a traffic ticket. She is young, afraid to tell her parents of the ticket and doesn’t want it on her record. She thinks it is unfair and is certain she was ticketed because of her red sports car, and that she was listening to her Ipod while driving. The ticket was for failing to stop at a traffic light. She admits she was “dancing to the music” and almost missed the light change. She slammed on her brakes, coming to a stop part way through the cross walk, but she did not go through the light until she heard what she thought was an emergency siren from somewhere behind her. Hearing the siren she turned right at the intersection. Based on the rule of the law how would you advise her? Red Light Woes, contd., ISSUE: Did the defendant violate the California Vehicle Code when she continued through a red light without first stopping? RULE: Moving vehicles are required to stop behind the cross walk at a red light. The vehicle must stop be stopped for 30 seconds before proceeding with a legal turn. A defense to this general rule and its element is the requirement that vehicles not block emergency vehicles and may advance or turn to avoid impeding the progress of an emergency vehicle. ANALYSIS: Defendant while driving her vehicle approached a lighted intersection. Nearly missing the change of light to red, she slammed on her brakes, stopping midway through the crosswalk. This position of her car violated the vehicle code requiring her to stop behind the crosswalk. Red Light Woes, contd. Although the Defendant claims to have heard sirens, there is no evidence of the emergency vehicle in the report, and she may well have heard the sound from music in the Ipod, so the defense of proceeding through the intersection to avoid impeding an emergency vehicle may be challenged. CONCLUSION: Defendant’s failure to stop behind the pedestrian cross walk at a red light violated the vehicle code. …

“Order a similar paper and get 20% discount on your first order with us Use the following coupon “GET20”