Get help now

What Do You Know about IRAC

  • Pages 2
  • Words 473
  • Views 267
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    Lie will attempt to prove she was the victim of intentional torts by her teacher Mr.. Buildups. At school, Lie was placed in a cage for the day to reenact how Americans reacted to the events of Pearl Harbor. Lie will accuse Mr.. Buildups of intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment. Being placed in a cage for the day will be considered an unreasonable amount of time, and being put in the cage with the other foreign born students from her class will show emotional distress. Negligence Lie will attempt to prove the four elements of negligence against Mr..

    Buildups for is previously stated actions. The elements required are duty of care, failure to protect from harm, cause of the harm, and damages, which in this case are psychological and physical. After review of the actions taken by Mr.. Buildups, it seems Lie will be able to show the four elements required for negligence. Lie’s Parents Respondent Superior/Sciences Lie’s parents will attempt to attach liability to the school district which employs Mr.. Buildups, claiming respondent superior. Lie’s parents will claim that Mr..

    Buildups’ inappropriate and harmful actions were performed within the COUrse and scope f his employment at the school, therefore leaving the district which employs him partially responsible or at fault. As Mr.. Buildups’ employer, the school district had every opportunity to put an end to the gross reenactments of events in American history which have taken place in Mr.. Buildups’ class even before the most recent incident involving Lie. In addition, sciences can be applied by Lie’s parents because at the very least, the principal of the school should have known about Mr.. Buildups’ demeaning antics.

    Mr.. Buildups Tort Defenses Mr.. Buildups will attempt to use tort defenses including assumption of risk, superseding/intervening cause, and contributory negligence. By sending their child to school, Lie’s parents assumed the risk of their child participating in educational activities in history class. The school district is partially to blame as well because they must have heard/known about the practices Mr.. Buildups uses to teach his students. In addition, Lie and the other foreign students contributed to their own negligence by attending Mr.. Buildups class and agreeing to be put in a cage in class.

    Sciences Lie’s parents, Lie herself, and the school district all should have known of the reenactments performed in Mr.. Buildups class, proving sciences. The school district which employs Mr.. Buildups will claim the frolic and detour defense to respondent superior. Their claim will be that Mr.. Buildups was acting outside the rules and regulations set forth by the district, and that they could not have possibly seen ahead of time the inappropriate actions Mr.. Buildups performed in his classroom. Conclusion: The court will use the reasonable person test and likely find for Lie and her parents.

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    What Do You Know about IRAC. (2018, Jun 19). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/what-do-you-know-about-irac/

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper
    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy