Unlocking the Benefits of IRAC Methodology for Legal Case Analysis - Essay Sample

Introduction

IRAC, which is an abbreviation of issue, rule, application, and conclusion, refers to a typical methodology for analyzing legal cases (Burton, 2017). People use the IRAC format in imaginative questions not only in bar exams but also in conventional law schools. Effective use of this methodology to analyze typical case leads to an appropriate decision, which the court undertakes to deliver a highly-informed and fair judgment in the case of the plaintiff and the defendant (Grady, 2019). This paper presents a typical analysis of a case study in which one camper, Van, avoided Minh, the owner of Blue Restaurant, alongside his staff and got injured despite violating its newly established rules using the IRAC method.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Issue

According to Burton (2017), an issue refers to a legal question that needs an answer in a typical case. A problem occurs when the facts of a case present a statutory ambiguity that the court must resolve. However, many researchers also resolve such legal issues by consulting legal precedents, which consist of predefined statutes, court rules, and past cases (Handford, 2011). Therefore, the issue in this case study is to determine whether the Minh is liable for Van's Injury.

Rule

The rule section of an IRAC methodology refers to the statement of different legal policies and guidelines critical in deciding the issues identified. However, rules in a common-law jurisdiction derive from various court case precedents as well as statute (Burton, 2017). These laws vary from one country to another. Therefore, multiple rules apply to the issue of Van vs. Minh, as presented in the case study. First, the Civil Liability Act 2003 in Queensland holds that a person cannot be liable in negligence for harm suffered by another individual due to the materialization of an obvious risk associated with a dangerous recreational activity that the victim undertook (Stoyanova, 2019). Second, the Law Reform or Contributory Negligence Act of 1945 in the United Kingdom allows judges to assign liability for compensatory damages when they feel to be fair and equitable between the defendant and the plaintiff that was partly to blame (Stoyanova, 2019). Lastly, all negligence claims in the United States and across multiple countries in the world require plaintiffs to prove four crucial things, including duty, breach, causation, and the resultant damage or harm for consideration.

Analysis

According to Burton (2017), judges must execute a thorough analysis of the issues identified in a typical case and the similar laws before reaching the final decision. Van may decide to sue Minh in a legal court due to suffering from an injury while in their premise, Blue Restaurant. However, Minh could defend himself by maintaining that they had repeatedly informed the campers and other tourists that the restroom facilities were only for the use of restaurant diners. The restaurant management put up a sign to remind all potential campers who might want to use the restroom facilities without dining (Grady, 2019). Therefore, Van went against the rules of the restaurant by intentionally sneaking into the restrooms without informing Minh and his staff.

Multiple cases apply to the issue of civil liability and negligence, for example, in Dorset Yacht v. Home Office, the court held that the government had no f immunity from suit when they neglectfully failed to prevent the escape of juvenile offenders who consequently vandalized a boatyard (Handford, 2011). However, the court maintained, in Donoghue v Stevenson, that no legal entity or individual can close the categories of negligence. This ruling implied that every member of the society has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care towards their colleagues and their corresponding property. Therefore, Van can sue the Blue Restaurant's staff alongside Minh for failing to close the facility where he suffered from an injury after entering. Lastly, the House of Lords maintained that a defendant could not be negligent if the damage to the plaintiff were not part of reasonable, predictable consequences of his conduct in Bolton v. Stone (1951) (Grady, 2019). Therefore, Minh and his staff could use the assertions available in this case for defense against Van.

Conclusion

A detailed analysis of the case study shows that Minh is not liable for Van's injury. Minh, alongside his staff members at the Blue Restaurant, took appropriate steps to caution campers, such as Van, against using the restroom facilities without dining at the restaurant. However, Van went against the restaurant's rules and deliberately entered one of the restroom facilities by avoiding Minh and his staff. Van had a legal duty to strictly follow the Blue Restaurant's management policy on the use of restroom facilities despite the failure of the staff to close the doors of these facilities at the time he entered and suffered from the injury.

Bibliography

Burton, K. (2017). Using a legal reasoning grid and criterion-referenced assessment rubric on IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion). Journal of Learning Design, 10(2), 57-68. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1134620.pdf.

Grady, M. F. (2019). Justice luck in negligence law. Revus, 37(1), 93-114. Retrieved from https://journals.openedition.org/revus/4325.

Handford, P. (2011). Intentional negligence: A contradiction in terms? Sydney Law Review, 32(1), 29-62. Retrieved from http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2010/2.pdf.

Stoyanova, V. (2019). Common law tort of negligence as a tool for deconstructing positive obligations under the European convention on human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 1(2), 11-20. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2019.1663342.