Florimonte’s employees
Please answer the following in IRAC format as attached.
1. Randy Senna owned Wildwood Fascination parlor, and arcade game on the boardwalk in Wildwood. His rival, Walter Florimont, owned Olympic Enterprises, located nearby on the boardwalk in North Wildwood. To keep his client base, Senna promised that prize tickets won at his Seaside Heights parlor would be honored at the Wildwood location. Soon afterwards Senna learned that staff members at Florimonte’s Olympic Enterprises were telling Olympic’s boardwalk customers that Senna would not honor the prize tickets that he had issued. Senna asked Florimont to restrain his employees from “bad-mouthing]” him and his business with false and derogatory comments. According to Senna however, Florimonte’s employees continued to verbally assail his business. Within a few months, Senna closed his Wildwood Fascination parlor, only to resurrect it in 2000 under the name of Flipper’s Fascination. On dates in July, August and September 2003, Florimonte’s employees broadcast over a public address system to his boardwalk customers that Senna was “dishonest” and “a crook”, charging that he “’ran away and screwed all of his customers at Seaside.’” As they had done several years earlier, Florimonts employees accused Senna of having left his Seaside Heights customers with worthless prize tickets—tickets he would not honor in Wildwood—and warned that he would cheat his customers again. Senna filed a civil complaint alleging that Florimont and his employees defamed Senna and tortuously interfered with his ability to conduct business at Flipper’s Fascination. Senna demanded compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Florimont. Senna appealed. Were Florimont’s comments enough to defame Senna’s business? Why or why not? [Senna v. Florimont, 958 A.2d 427 (N.J. 2008).]
2. Erica Aponte, age seven, attended Thanksgiving dinner at the home of Michael and Deborah Castor, her aunt and uncle. Following dinner, Erica, accompanied by her cousin, went outside and crawled under/through an electric wire fence that enclosed Castor’s horse paddock area. Erica was subsequently kicked in the face by Castor’s horse, sustaining injury. Teresa Aponte, Erica’s mother, filed suit against Castor, seeking damages for Erica’s injuries. Castor filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because Erica did not have permission to leave the house or enter the paddock area, and did so without her parents’ or Castor’s knowledge, Erica was a trespasser and, therefore, he should not be held liable for her injuries. Aponte responded that Erica was a social guest, not a trespasser; Castor should have warned Aponte regarding the dangerous nature of the horse; and genuine issues of material fact existed that would preclude the granting of summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment. Aponte appealed. How did the court rule on appeal? Why? [Aponte v. Castor, 155 Ohio App. 3d 553 (2003).]
3. Anthony Caruso lived in Mohican Historic Housing from 1998 to 2001, when he died. Mohican Historic Housing Association was aware Margherita Del Core was Caruso’s next of kin, his sister. Although Mohican had been informed Del Core was Caruso’s next of kin, it did not respond to efforts by the hospital to obtain that information after his death. In the absence of that information, the hospital arranged for Caruso’s burial in a pauper’s grave. Four months later, Mohican informed Del Core of the death. Del Core filed suit against Mohican for, among other things, inflicting extreme emotional distress upon her by not informing her in a timely manner about her brother’s death, so that she could have arranged a proper funeral. The trial court granted Mohican’s motion to dismiss, and Del Core appealed. Is Mohican liable for an intentional infliction of emotional distress? Should Mohican have informed Del Core sooner regarding her brother’s death? [Del Core v. Mohican Historic Housing Assocs., 81 Conn. App. 120 (2004).]
4. Michael Buchanan went shopping in Maxfield Enterprises Inc.’s store, which is located on Melrose Avenue in Los Angeles. Buchanan did not know, at the time he entered the store, that celebrities Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck were also in the store, shopping. Less than 20 minutes after Buchanan entered the store, Maxfield store manager Jacqueline Sassoon asked Buchanan to leave the store. When Buchanan asked Sassoon for an explanation, she refused to give a reason. When Buchanan became angered, Maxfield store security placed him under a citizen’s arrest. Two local sheriff’s deputies, on hand because of Affleck and Lopez, handcuffed Buchanan and escorted him into the Maxfield parking lot. Because of the presence of Lopez and Affleck, the parking lot was “thronged” with TV and other media reporters and film crews. Buchanan was led, handcuffed, straight into the media circus. After Buchanan was walked around the store parking lot, Sassoon told the deputies she did not want Buchanan arrested after all. The deputies removed the handcuffs and Buchanan was free to leave. Excerpts from television and print media purported to report that a stalker had shadowed Lopez and Affleck in the Maxfield store and the stalker was removed from the scene by police officers who had responded to a call from the store about the stalker. Buchanan sued Maxfield for invasion of privacy, alleging that the defendant invaded his right to privacy by parading him, handcuffed, before the media and, as a result of this, that he suffered injury to his reputation, as well as mental anguish and emotional distress. Buchanan also sued for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Maxfield filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the trial court. Buchanan appealed. Was Buchanan successful on appeal? What must he prove to be successful in his claims? [Buchanan v. Maxfield Enterprises, Inc., 130 Cal. App. 4th 418 (2005).]
Introduction to IRAC
All homework case problems and essay answers on the examinations must be answered in IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) format. This is a specialized format that is used in the law to help us analyze legal questions and develop our critical legal thinking skills. It helps teach us how to look at a set of facts, determine the rule of law that applies, apply the law to that set of facts, and then develop a legally defensible conclusion.
Example:
Beulah walked up quietly behind Verna and hit her in the head with a textbook causing serious injury to Verna.
Verna will end up suing Beulah. The ISSUE is the fundamental/basic question that Verna will be asking the court to answer. It should be specific as to the cause of action upon which Verna is suing–in essence:
Issue: Whether Beulah is liable to Verna for battery.
The next step is the RULE. This is the rule of law that applies to the case. How can you tell whether Beulah is liable unless you know what the definition of battery is? The rule is the definition of the cause of action.
Rule: Battery-an unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person.
The next step is the toughest–the APPLICATION. Students normally struggle with this section initially but eventually get the hang of it. It takes lots of practice by spending time on your homework answers and reviewing the model answers–practice, practice, practice. The application is where you take the elements of the rule (definition of the cause of action) and match it with the facts of the case. The best way to determine the elements is to look at the adjectives used in the definition. For example, the first thing that’s required for a battery is an unauthorized contact. The next thing that’s required is that the contact be harmful or offensive. The next requirement is that there be a physical contact. The last requirement is that the contact be with another person.
What facts indicate to you that this contact was unauthorized? The fact that Beulah walked up quietly behind Verna. What fact indicates that the contact was harmful (let’s go with harmful as opposed to offensive in this case)? The fact that Verna suffered serious injuries. What fact indicates that there was a physical contact? The fact that Beulah hit Verna. What fact indicates that Verna is a person? Well, the facts aren’t specific, but it’s a reasonable presumption.
Application: This contact was unauthorized because the facts state that Beulah walked up quietly behind Verna indicating that she did not want to be discovered. The contact was harmful because the facts state that Verna suffered serious injuries. The facts also state that Verna was hit by Beulah which means that there was physical contact. Finally, while the facts don’t state specifically that Verna is a person, it is a reasonable assumption given the circumstances.
The next section is the CONCLUSION which is the answer to the question asked in the issue–yes or no.
Conclusion: Yes. (It’s also okay to write a one sentence affirmation of your conclusion like “Yes, based on the facts presented, Beulah is liable for battery” if you choose to do so)
In IRAC you are not advocating one side or the other–you are to look at each scenario like a judge and analyze the facts leading you to develop a “ruling” so to speak.
Do not provide “cut and paste” analyses. These are analyses where the student simply gives back the facts given without any analysis. For example:
Issue: Whether Beulah is liable to Verna for battery.
Rule: Battery-an unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person.
Application: Beulah walked up quietly behind Verna and hit her in the head with a textbook causing serious injury to Verna.
Conclusion: Yes.
This is not a good IRAC–and will result in very few points. It does not explain how you came to your conclusion. Basically, the student is taking the facts given and saying to the professor–“Here are the facts you gave me. I’m giving them back. I don’t know how to figure out this problem–you do it.” Don’t make your mother cry by getting a low score on your IRAC. Give me a good IRAC using proper form and analysis and get points for your efforts on an exam.
Also, if you are struggling to make the facts fit the rule, step by and ask yourself whether or not you are using the correct rule.
…………………………..Answer preview………………………………
Case 1
Issue: In regard to this case, the way the Florimonte’s employees did was an act of defamation to Senna’s business forcing him to close down the first business he had set up. The issue that arises here is if the court really followed the rules of defamation to grant summary judgment in favor of Florimont and if the defamatory statement made by the Florimont employees could really defame Senna’s business…………………………….
APA
981 words
