Question

IRAC (Issue Rule Argument Conclusion) IRAC is a basic method to brief a case. To better understand the cases we read we need to be able to identify the relevant factual and legal issues in them. How do we do this? We look at the underlying facts of the case. In Li v. Yellow Cab the plaintiff turned into a gas station when a cab coming in the opposite direction crashed into plaintiff's car on the rear passenger side. The jury found both drivers were negligent but the cab driver was more at fault than plaintiff. The law in California before Li v. Yellow Cab was that contributory negligence (careless conduct contributing to plaintiff's own injuries) by plaintiff barred plaintiff's recovery. But in Li v. Yellow Cab the California Supreme Court abandoned the contributory negligence doctrine for the comparative negligence doctrine. Under the comparative negligence doctrine a plaintiff is not barred from recovery. Defendant's liability is in proportion to fault. So if the cab driver was 80% at fault and Li was 20% at fault Li (instead of being barred under the doctrine of contributory negligence) could recover under the doctrine of comparative negligence 80% of her damages (pain, suffering, property damage, lost wages, medical expenses, etc.). If she proved $40,000 in total damages and the defendant was 80% at fault her judgment would be $32,000. Under the IRAC method the issue is always in the form of a question; the rule derives from a source of law (constitution, statute, common law or case law, or administrative law); the argument applies the facts of the case to the law; and, the conclusion identifies who wins. Post a reply that puts the following sentences in an order that make a proper brief: Comparative negligence is a doctrine based on liability in proportion to fault. Whether or not comparative negligence should be applied in this case? Plaintiff is entitled to 80% of her proven damages. By determining which party (or parties) is at fault and to what degree a fair and just result can be obtained rather than completely barring recovery to the party who is less at fault. In your reply use the following setup: Issue: (Insert the correct sentence) Rule: (Insert the correct sentence) Argument: (Insert the correct sentence) Conclusion: (Insert the correct sentence)

Answer 1

Under the IRAC method the issue is always in the form of a question

Whether or not comparative negligence should be applied in this case?

The rule derives from a source of law (constitution, statute, common law or case law, or administrative law)

Comparative negligence is a doctrine based on liability in proportion to fault.

The argument applies the facts of the case to the law

The jury in California found both drivers were negligent and barred plaintiff's recovery ,citing contributory negligence on his part.

The Supreme court opined that ,as the cab driver was more at fault than plaintiff,comparative negligence doctrine could be applied, wherby, the plaintiff can recover 80% of the costs as damages.

So, it felt that the plaintiff is entitled to 80% of her proven damages. By determining that the cab driver is more at fault , fair and just result can be obtained instead of rather than completely barring recovery to the her who is less at fault.

conclusion identifies who wins

The plaintiff wins on grounds of comparative negligence doctrine.