MIKE and NED
Sample Answer in Proper IRAC Form
Is Ned liable to Mike for assault?
Assault is an intentional act that causes a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive
contact. Here, Ned’s intent is demonstrated by the fact that he was “furious” and threw the ball “at Mike.”
Mike’s ducking to avoid the ball shows that he was in apprehension of an immediate contact by the
baseball. Mike’s laughing does not negate this apprehension because fear is not required – only an
apprehension that the harmful or offensive contact might immediately result. Therefore, Ned is liable to
Mike for assault.
Is Ned liable to Mike for trespass to chattel?
[Students might not know this concept at this stage of their law studies. So, please do not worry
about it. If you have your legal dictionary, you can look up this word now.]
Trespass to chattel is an act that intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s possessory
interest in personal property, which results in damage. Here, Ned’s throwing the baseball was intentional
as analyzed above under “assault.” It does not appear that Ned intended to hit Mike’s computer monitor;
rather, it appears that he intended to hit Mike with the baseball. However, under the doctrine of
transferred intent, the intent “transfers” from the intended tort to the actual tort. It appears that Ned
intended a battery on Mike, which is an intentional harmful or offensive contact with the person of
another. Although the baseball missed Mike, the intent “transfers” from the battery to provide intent for a
trespass to chattel. Since damage to Mike’s computer monitor resulted, all the elements of trespass to
chattel are present. Therefore, Ned is liable to Mike for trespass to chattel.
HOW DID YOU DO? Can you take this Sample Answer and (using the margins) "IRAC
it," that is circle or mark the elements of IRAC. Did the model answer have all the IRAC
components? Were they in the correct order? Can you do the same process with your
own writing?
Please do not worry if your work is not perfect! You will have a whole year to work on
these skills. You will receive many writing opportunities with feedback and suggestions
for improvement. Hope you enjoyed the challenge!
~~~
Here's another outline of the same answer, but using color coding to help demonstrate IRAC.
Model Answer Broken Down, Using Color Coding
(The paragraph format above is the correct one for your answers. This labeled breakdown below is only
for demonstrative purposes and should not be used on your regular assignments.)
1
ISSUE: Is Ned liable to Mike for assault?
RULE: Assault is an intentional act that causes a reasonable apprehension of
an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
ANALYSIS/APPLICATION: Here, Ned’s intent is demonstrated by the fact that he
was “furious” and threw the ball “at Mike.” Mike’s ducking to avoid the ball shows that
he was in apprehension of an immediate contact by the baseball. Mike’s laughing
does not negate this apprehension because fear is not required – only an
apprehension that the harmful or offensive contact might immediately result.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Ned is liable to Mike for assault.
ISSUE: Is Ned liable to Mike for trespass to chattel?
RULE: Trespass to chattel is an act that intentionally interferes with the
plaintiff’s possessory interest in personal property, which results in damage.
ANALYSIS/APPLICATION: Here, Ned’s throwing the baseball was intentional as
analyzed above under “assault.” It does not appear that Ned intended to hit Mike’s
computer monitor; rather, it appears that he intended to hit Mike with the baseball.
However, under the doctrine of transferred intent, the intent “transfers” from the
intended tort to the actual tort. It appears that Ned intended a battery on Mike, which
is an intentional harmful or offensive contact with the person of another. Although the
baseball missed Mike, the intent “transfers” from the battery to provide intent for a
trespass to chattel. Since damage to Mike’s computer monitor resulted, all the
elements of trespass to chattel are present.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Ned is liable to Mike for trespass to chattel.
NOTE: If you wrote about battery to the computer, make a note that battery must be on the PERSON of
another. Also, if you wrote about conversion, remember that in most jurisdictions, transferred intent does
not apply to conversion.
NOTE: "HERE"
"HERE" is a trigger word that indicates that the writer is about to begin the factual analysis that is
the core task of any essay. Another trigger phrase is "In this case." You are not required to use
either, but to do so will remind you not to skip the "Analysis / Application" stage.
Congratulations! You have just completed your first Law School Essay! Your skills are
improving already.
______________________________
© 2010 Concord Law School. All Rights Reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or distribution by any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the copyright holder.
2