Second IRAC
Please write an IRAC answer to the following Tort essay.
A residence hall on the campus of University was evacuated after a number of
student residents became seriously ill from aerial dispersal of bacteria that had
infested the air conditioning system. Reputable consultants retained by
University to prescribe a remedy for the infestation advised University that
there were three ways to proceed: the cheapest would be to purge the air
conditioning system with disinfectants, which had usually taken care of the
problem in several other similar circumstances; a more expensive method
would be to seal off and fumigate the building, which would be more effective;
and the most expensive, and the most effective, would be to do multiple sealed
fumigations.
To minimize the expense, University chose the cheapest method. University
was also motivated by the need to recover revenues that it had lost during the
closure and by the need to be able to provide desperately needed housing for
the students. After allowing time for the disinfectant to work its way out of the
air conditioning system, University reopened the residence hall and advertised
reduced rates to induce students to move back in.
Paula and her roommate Art, students attracted by the reduced rates, spoke
with University’s Director of Student Housing, who told them that it was safe to
move back. Paula said, “Well, I guess I have to rely on your judgment.” Art
agreed, saying, “At that price, it’s worth the risk.” They resumed living in the
residence hall. Soon after they moved back, Paula and Art had an argument,
which left Paula harboring anger against Art.
Within a month, Paula fell ill with the same bacterial infection. Art did not
become ill. However, while waiting for an ambulance to pick her up, Paula
stuffed Art’s pillow into the ventilator duct with the intent of allowing the pillow
to accumulate as much bacteria as possible. She then placed the pillow on
Art’s bed. A week later, Art became ill with the same infection.
Paula and Art each wish to sue University for personal injury. What theory of
liability should they assert, what defenses might University raise against each,
and who would be likely to prevail in each suit? Discuss
ISSUE: Was the University negligent for not addressing the issue of bacteria in
the duct system at the residence hall?
RULE: Negligence is conduct that falls below the standards of behavior
established by law to protect others against unreasonable harm. The University
would have acted negligently if they had not acted prudently in the situation of
the students falling sick because of the infestation of the bacteria. In order to
prove the University as negligent, a plaintiff or plaintiffs would have to prove
that they defendant did not act reasonably. Plaintiffs can use a law or any
number of different means to prove unreasonableness. Plaintiffs would also
have to show that the University had a duty to the plaintiff and that the
University breached that duty by falling below the standard of conduct and
that caused harm or damage to the plaintiff.
ANALYSIS: The Plaintiffs can sue the University under the negligence standard
for not acting as a reasonable person. They took the cheapest way “out” to fix
the bacterial problems in the ductwork and they pretty much guaranteed that
the problem was fixed. The plaintiffs could allege that a reasonable person
would have had the most expensive and thorough work done and not to let
anyone move into the dorm until the bacteria was guaranteed to be gone.
However, the University did employ a company to clean out the ductwork and
ostensibly rid the bacteria problem. They also advised the new tenants, Paula
and Art of the former problem so they took on the risk. Paula even said it was
worth the risk to pay a lower rent. It could be said that the University did what
a reasonable person would do what the University did, so there was no
negligence involved. The plaintiffs would have to prove that the University was
negligent which would be difficult. In addition, after Paula got sick she
deliberately stuffed a pillow in the ductwork to accumulate bacteria and make
Art sick when he was not sick previously. That would be Paula’s contributory
negligence at the very least. She knew what would likely happen and
contributed to the problem. It would also likely be an intentional tort on the
part of Paula—assault or another tort.
CONCLUSION: The Plaintiffs would have to prove the University did not act as
a reasonable person would have in fixing the bacteria problem. They would not
be able to show, probably, that the University was negligent. The problem was
fixed, allegedly, by the company hired to do so. They did what a reasonable
person would do and then Paula and Art, knowing the problem that formerly
existed, took on the risk of moving into the dormitory. Also, after Paula
realized the problem may not be fixed because she got sick, took extraordinary
measures to make Art sick, when he was not. They would not likely be
successful in their tort claim.