100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 15 pages.
Supplemental Bar Skills ProgramPace LawEssay Pre-writesPlease note that the pre-writes contained in this packet are only meant to be examples of how you can write essays on certain topics. This is not an exhaustive list of all possible essays that you might see on the bar exam. Additionally, depending on the essay questions you see on the bar exam, these pre-writes could be complete answers, or they could just be a small portion of alarger answer. It is important that you use this packet in the way it is meant to be used – as a guide, and not as a static list of essay rules to be memorized and repeated on the bar exam. This packet is meant to help you in formulating your own answers to these and other topics. If you see law in this packet that is stated differently, or inconsistent with, the law you are learning from your commercial bar review company, follow the law you are learning with that company. Use these as examples of proper IRAC form, and of the “rule funnels” that you should be including on your essays. After reviewing these pre-writes, try making your own for other heavily tested essay topics not included in this packet.
TortsThis prewrite is for when you spot negligence as the main issue.Always start with the main rule:To bring a claim for negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, who was foreseeable, that the defendant breached that duty, that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and that the plaintiff was in fact injured. Then…..If duty is the issue:Defendants owe a duty to reasonably foreseeable victims of their carelessness. Here (discuss whether P was a reasonably foreseeable victim). (Despite the lack of a duty) The other elements of negligence have been met because D did not act like a reasonably prudent person should have, his actions were the but-for cause of P’s injuries and P’s injuries were a foreseeable result of D’s breach, and P was injured. (However, because there was no duty, there can be no claim for negligence) OR (Therefore, all of the elements of negligence have been met and there can be a claim). If breach is the issue:Here, D owed a duty to P because P was a foreseeable victim of D’s carelessness. However, one has a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar situations. (Add any special duty rules here). D did/not breach his duty because (discuss breach). (If there is no breach, the discussion ends there. If there is a breach, move on) The other elements of negligence have been met because D’s actions were the but-for cause of P’s injuries and P’s injuries were a foreseeable result of D’s breach, and P was injured. Therefore, all of the elements of negligence have been met and there can be a claim.