IRAC Family or Employment, English homework help

User Generated

fgrsnazjraqr

Humanities

Description

IRAC Family or Employment, including wills, trusts, or health directives IRAC Basics: Issue(s) - are written in the form of questions! These issues are questions one might ask regarding how the law applies to the article you have chosen. Rules - are the laws/rules that the writer thinks may apply to the issues. Analysis - is where the writer either proves or disproves the application of the rules. This is a major focus of the paper and presentation.critical thinking must be applied. Conclusion - will take one of two approaches. First, if the court has decided the case, do you agree with the decision? Why, or why not? If the court has yet to make a decision, what do you think needs to be done, and why. There is no minimum or limitation to the length of the paper. The writers approach is to be concise, organized, and complete in the presentation of the case. If you need any further clarification of this assignment, please make an appointment to see me during office hours. Be sure to attach the news article/court case to your essay. If the article/case is not attached a score will not be given. The attachment can be in the form of a link to a web page. SAMPLE IN THE ATTACHMENT 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

IRAC #1 1 IRAC #1 Mohammed Alobaidallah Sacramento City College BUS 345 Brian Mom IRAC #1 2 Summery In the year 2016, Jim expressed his interests in training for the balling game with purposes of beating his long term friend who always defeated him. He took a step of registering for some classes with a trainer around his residential area where the training sessions were agreed on contract terms. Ken, who happened to be his trainer, built a lot of confidence in Jim’s good feedback of fast learning. During one of the sessions, Ken playfully threw the heavy ball to Jim as he expected him to have a quick response as he did. Unfortunately, the ball slipped and hit Jim’s leg. Jim got injured although he said that it wasn’t serious. In two days later, Jim came back for his next session where he started complaining of pains on his leg as he tried to lift his leg up. Jim called his friend who took him to the hospital immediately where the doctors discovered that his foot was fractured. He received a lot of treatment which cost him a lot. Jim’s lawyer including himself claimed that the trainer game institution and Ken the trainer were both liable and negligent for the costly and serious injuries sustained by Jim during his training session. On the other hand, the game trainer institution put blames on Jim for the injuries with claims of having signed a waiver which meant, he clearly understood the risks that were on his exposure during the training process(Halliday, 2015). Issue Was the fault of negligence of the trainer game company and Ken in the course of providing the services for balling to Jim? IRAC #1 3 Rules According to business and law, four elements are of importance for any occurrence of a negligence case to fall to blame. (1) The plaintiff owns the duty of care (2) there is an existence of a breach of a duty of care (3) the breaching of law caused the plaintiff injury, and (4) the harm suffered by the plaintiff was recognizable legally. These elements make the duty of care to be central which means that there may be a commitment of a tort if an individual is not careful enough for his actions. The obligation of attention is quantified in court according to the plausible person standard, an objective standard that asks what a likely person would have done in the same circumstances as the defendant (Vago, 2015). The obligation of care may be even more pronounced in this case because a personal trainer could disputably be considered a professional “if an individual has erudition, adeptness, or training superior to that of an ordinary person (Miller, 2016).” If Ken is regarded as a professional in his field, he would be judged in court by the plausible professional standard for his field, and could be sued for malpractice. At the very least, he can be judged by a higher standard than that of a likely person. Another paramount rule, in this case, is the posit of jeopardy, which is what the defendant’s lawyer claims as their bulwark to negligence. It asserts that the plaintiff had erudition and voluntary postulation of the peril by signing a waiver, and they are consequently not liable. In court, posit of jeopardy is a legal bulwark that can confuse a negligence case. IRAC #1 4 Analysis Ken and the game trainer institution were negligent during the process of training because they breached their obligation of care. In the fitness world, a certified personal trainer is likely the highest caliber of expertise that an average person can employ. As the head coach at one of the biggest game training institutions, Ken could be considered a trusted employee with a degree of responsibility for his clients. As a fitness expert, his conduct did not reflect the expertise that his designation represents. Ken put Jim on an unstable surface without ascertaining his safety. While a plausible professional (or a credible game center) might sanction a client to surmise the jeopardies of minor injuries associated with fitness training, it is an adamant claim that multiple fractures on various body components are a flamboyantly obvious risk that the client must surmise. Even after the injury occurred, Ken did not show concern for taking care of Jim’s injuries and did nothing further to alleviate the damages that occurred during his time exhibitor (Halliday, 2015) Ken’s breach of his obligation of attention regarding the opportune and safety utilization led to Jim’s fall and injury, and it would be intransigent for a client to be responsible for injuries obtained due to incongruous injunctive authorization. Jim sought for Ken’s services to amend his fitness and instead suffered broken bones. A likely person would not postulate that broken bones were a possibility with supervision in a controlled game environment. It is why Jim could not have assumed the peril of this kind of serious injury the action of receiving the ball is not accompanied by great amounts of jeopardy when used safety and under the care of a professional. In fact, the Institution’s owner’s manual advises against throwing the ball to one another. Unprofessional games are not recommended, as this information is IRAC #1 5 additionally stamped on the bottom of the unit and the ‘Frequently Asked Questions.' It is pellucid that Ken did not have the adequate erudition to utilize this contrivance safely in his training (Vago, 2015). Conclusion In the same year of 2016, the Superior Court Judge Blue Rive sided with the plaintiff, verbally expressing that thousands, if not millions, of ordinary people, go to game training centers as such, and there is a societal prospect that such activities will be plausibly safe. Blue withal dissented with the defendant’s claim that playing with the Ball unnecessarily came with intrinsically jeopardies. They went to mediation, and Jim was given a settlement of $600,000. The court ruling was fair and designated that negligence had occurred by the institution and its head trainer; Jim was given compensatory damages for his injuries sustained. It is lamentable that the system did not take responsibility for their breach of the obligation of care in a public way. The case underscores the fact that establishments as such are just corporations, and not all personal trainers have the required skills or cognizance to be trusted by the average game patron. However, the court ruling was fair and provided the plaintiff with the damages that he deserved. IRAC #1 6 References Vago, S. (2015). Law and society.Routledge. Halliday, T. C. (2015). Transnational legal orders.Cambridge University Press. Miller, R. L. (2016). Business Law Today, Comprehensive. Cengage learning. I need three pages
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Have a look at it.

Running head: BOBBY GENOVESE

1

Bobby Genovese

Student’s Name
Number
Course
Professor

Date

BOBBY GENOVESE

2
Summary

A case before a South Florida judge involving Bobby Genovese was dismissed. The case
involving the international businessman who lives in Marion County involved the swindling of
stock market investors. It was alleged that Bobby and his accomplices used a ‘pump and dump’
scheme to swindle the investors.
The complaint was based on the basis that Genovese together with his co-defendants
mislead intentionally the statements about stock. They are purported to have manipulated the
stocks. Apparently, it was said t...


Anonymous
I use Studypool every time I need help studying, and it never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags