Question

While Charles and Esther Kveragas were in a rented motel room at the Scottish Inns, Inc., in Knoxville, Tennessee, three intruders kicked open the door, shot Charles, and injured Esther. The intruders also took $3,000 belonging to the Kveragases. The Kveragases brought an action against the motel owners, claiming that the owners had been negligent in failing to provide adequately for the safety of the motel s guests. At trial, the evidence showed that the door had a hollow core and that it fit poorly into the door frame. There was no deadbolt lock on the door, although such locks were easily available and commonly used in motels. The only lock on the door was one fitted into the door handle, which was described as a grade three lock, although a security chain was attached to the door. The Kveragases had both locked and chained the door, but still, a single kick on the part of the intruders was all that was necessary to open it. Evidence at trial also indicated that a deadbolt lock would have withstood the force that was applied to the door. Did the motel owners have a duty to protect their guests from criminal acts on the motel premises, and if so, did the owners breach that duty of care by failing to provide more secure locks on the doors of the motel rooms?

WRITE IN IRAC FORM

IRAC is the method in which most courts write decisions. It was extremely helpful to me in law school. I also think it helps solve problems in other disciplines as well. It certainly helps students begin to learn logical thinking.

I = Issue
R = Rule
A = Analysis / Application
C = Conclusion

Issue- What is the legal issue or question raised by the facts of a case. Said in another way, what is the legal issue or question the court (you) are trying to answer? Often, the chapter question provides you with the legal issue. Sometimes, you should try to be more specific. For instance, some questions ask at the end: “How should the court decide this case?” Of course, that is the general question of every single case ever tried in court. It isn't specific enough. Instead, a more specific way to state the issue might be, for instance, “Did the plaintiff breach the contract?” or “Is X Corporation liable for a defective product that injured a 3^rdparty?”

Rule- State and explain or define the law or rule that applies to this case. You will have read the rule somewhere in the chapter. As an example: “Hearsay is testimony someone gives in court about a statement made by someone else who was not under oath at the time of the statement.” “Hearsay is not admissible as evidence.” In this section, you do not discuss the facts of the case - you just state the rule that would apply in any case involving this particular issue. Make sure you include an explanation of the rule - not just the name.

Application / AnalysisHere you applythe rule you've identified above to the facts to reach a conclusion. Said another way, you analyzethe facts according to the law to reach a conclusion. There are always two sides to each case. While sometimes one side has a much stronger argument than the other, and obviously the court will decide the case based on the strongest argument, that does not mean the other's argument is necessarily invalid. Assuming you've identified the correct issue and rule, your conclusion will usually not be “wrong” provided your analysis is logical. The majority of the class may not subscribe to your conclusion; however, what I am looking for is whether you support your conclusion with sound reasoning.

Conclusion- This can be a one sentence statement. Carrying forth with the example above: “the witness’ testimony was hearsay (for the reasons set forth in your application) therefore the court shall exclude it as inadmissible evidence.”

Answer 1

Issue=Did the motel owners have a duty to protect their guests from criminal acts on the motel premises

Rule= In case of tort law, the duty of care is the legal obligation that is imposed by the law on an individual to take all the necessary steps and actions to provide the security and safety of life and assets of the others.

Analysis= While Charles and Esther Kveragas rented a room in Scottish Inns, Inc., in Knoxville, Tennessee,. They were attacked by three intruders and were looted $3,000 belonging and harmed by these intruders. The hotel room does not have sufficient safety as door had a hollow core and that it fit poorly into the door frame. There was no deadbolt lock on the door, and the main gate can easily be opened by applying moderate force by any individual. All this led to the illegal entry of the three intruders and attack and looting of the guests.

Conclusion= If we look at the case, there are enough evidence that prove that the motel management was not doing anything special that was required for the safety and security of the guests. The doors were not provided with enough locks, the main entry was easy to be encroached. This indicated that the management did not fulfil its duty of care that was to protect and safeguard the property of the guest and their lives.