The expectation is that you will provide a thoughtful analysis of the case scenario, using the concepts that you have learned in the text book. Lawyers use a systematic method of analyzing legal issues called IRAC. “IRAC” stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.
When approaching the case studies, you will first need to determine the issue or question being asked. Once the issue is defined, you must determine the rule that applies to the fact scenario. This will guide you in your analysis. The analysis simply requires that you apply the appropriate rule(s) to the facts presented. Once you have done this, it will lead you to your conclusion or the proper outcome in the case.
For example, let’s look at the following scenario. Bob asks the waiter at a fancy restaurant to recommend an entrée. The waiter recommends the fish. Bob orders the fish, has an allergic reaction and is rushed to the hospital The next day, Bob calls the restaurant and angrily yelled to the waiter, “when I get out of this hospital, I’m driving straight to your restaurant and I’m gonna punch you in the nose!” Has Bob committed a tort against the waiter?
There are a number of ways you could analyze this issue, but using IRAC can make it simple to structure your analysis. See below.
Issue: Has Bob committed a tort against the waiter? Rule: The tort of assault requires only that there be a reasonable apprehension or fear of immediate harm; whereas the tort of battery requires that there be actual physical contact. Since there was no physical contact, “assault” would apply, but battery would not apply to these facts. Analysis: For assault to occur, there must be a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm. In this case, there was definitely a reasonable apprehension of harm because the waiter recommended an entrée to a customer that got sick and had to be hospitalized. The facts state that Bob angrily yelled at the waiter and made a threat to harm him. Therefore, the “reasonable” apprehension element is satisfied. However, the second element for assault is not satisfied. Although there was a reasonable apprehension of harm, the harm was not “immediate”, which is required for battery to exist. Bob says that he is going to punch the waiter when he gets out of the hospital. If he was outside the restaurant, the “immediate” element might be satisfied, but not when he is still in the hospital.
Conclusion: Bob cannot be held liable for assault because the threatened harm to him was not “immediate.”
This is simply one example of a way to approach the issue. Not every scenario will lend itself so neatly to such an analysis like above. Nonetheless, the idea is to apply the legal principles that you learned to the facts and come to a conclusion based on your analysis. The key is to think about the facts and use them in your analysis. Most students simply come to a conclusion, but do not state how they arrived at the conclusion. Using IRAC will help in this regard.