Legal issues in four tort negligence cases

¶ … IRAC approach to legal issue, the first stage in assessing any case is the identification of the issues, before the identification of rules and their application which are used to reach a conclusion. This paper identifies five of the issues in four cases. It is possible there may be more than five in each case. Issues are usually phrased as questions.

Case A Did Glen owe Miguel and Jack a duty of care, if so did he breach that duty?

Was the mental distress and subsequent hospitalization of Jacki a direct result of Glen's actions?

Did the police owe Miguel and Jacki a duty of care, and was that breached by releasing Glen only an hour after he had been cited for drinking under the influence (could they has reasonability foreseen what might occur)

When Miguel spoke to Stacy, did he intend to inflict emotional harm by inaccurately referring to him as a 'drunken murderer', and did this cause any injury? Also, did Stavy have a duty of care to Glen to make sure her published story was true, and was there any injury as a direct result of the sotry?

5. Did Jacki's neighbor have a duty of care towards Glen specifically to keep his dog under control, and was that breached when the dog bit Glen's leg?

Case B

1. Was Leiserv, doing business as Mockingbird Lanes, negligent in failing to clear the ice from the lane, or warn customers of the danger of ice?

2. Does the statement of Frank Jameson, general manager of Mockingbird

Case C

1. Should the warrant have issued for the search Donald's apartment and arrest based on sufficient probable cause, based on an only in an anonymous informant.

2. Should the word of an informant be sufficient for the issue of a warrant if there is no information provided regarding the character and reliability of the informant?

3. Was evidence presented; observations of him crossing the state line, an apartment having two telephone lines, and a reputation of Donald as a bookmaker enough evidence to create reasonable suspicion?

4. Is the evidence obtained in Donald's apartment admissible, or is it the fruit of a poison branch?

5. Are the incriminating statements made by Donald admissible, or are they the fruit of a poison branch?

Case D

1. Was Professor Tickle negligent when having a glass of wine and then choosing to drive?

2. Did the drink take by Professor Tickle lead to, or contribute to, the accident, or was it the other drivers fault for driving over the speed limit?

3. Is Professor Tickle unable to gain new employment as a result of the university providing bad references, if so, is the university committing liable by giving inaccurate information? Has this caused injury?

4. Have the university committed slander by telling the private investigator that Professor Tickle "lazy," "drank too much" and implying she may be having a nervous breakdown, looking at each claim individually? Has this caused injury?

5. Does the employees' neighbor have a duty of care to Professor Tickle, and are they in breach when their dog bites Professor Tickle?