IRAC is a method of structing responses to law school exam questions. IRAC stands for issue, rule, analysis and conclusion. This method is helpful in adjusting your thought process to think like a lawyer. Some students even find it useful to build their outlines according to IRAC. At the very least, this method will remind you of the various elements that need to be addressed in your exam response.
I am going to take you through structuring a response with IRAC using the classic case Vosburg v. Putney, which involves two young boys playing around in school while class was in session. As a refresher, the defendant tapped the plaintiff lightly on his shin during class. The plaintiff fell severely ill and lost the ability to use his leg because of the tap. Doctors said that the plaintiff tapping the defendant agitated the plaintiff's preexisting sledding injury to the same leg. For a deeper dive into the facts of this case, see my other blog post tagged below and linked here: https://www.lawyerwithafrenchie.com/post/torts-1l-case-brief-help-vosburg-v-putney
There are several legal issues present in Vosburg. I will focus on the damages issue to illustrate the proper use of IRAC. The court held the defendant liable for all of the injuries to the plaintiff’s shin even though most of the damage was rooted in Vosburg’s prior sledding injury. The court reasoned that defendants take their victims as they find them and are therefore liable for the injuries they inflict even if those injuries could not have been foreseen. Let’s break this down using the IRAC method:
Issue: Ask yourself what legal issue is being presented. Here, the issue is if a defendant is liable for damages inflicted by their unlawful act if those damages were not foreseeable. These “issue” sentences will usually start with a phrase similar to “whether a defendant is liable for…”
Rule: State the applicable law. This portion will come from your memorization of the holdings in the cases you covered in class. Here, the applicable law is that a defendant is liable for all damages caused by their unlawful action even if those damages were not foreseeable.
Analysis: Apply the aforementioned rule to the facts in the exam hypo. Applied here, Putney slightly tapped Vosburg’s shin with his foot. A reasonable person would not have foreseen that such a slight tap would result in the loss of the use of Vosburg’s limb. A foreseeable injury would have been, at most, a bruise. However, as stated above, the court held that a defendant takes its victim as they find them.
Conclusion: State what the court would hold in this case according to the black letter law and your analysis above. Here, the conclusion is that the defendant is liable for all of the injuries caused to the plaintiff’s leg even though the injuries were not foreseeable.
Kommentare