Other sample answers show the writer putting NPS in a variety of other places. So it makes better sense to go through NPS before the default standard of care.Īdmittedly, this was NOT a big deal. Technically, “reasonably prudent person” is the default standard of care when NPS doesn’t apply. Essay A discussed negligence per se before the “reasonably prudent person” standard of care. Here’s more on how to write a proper, stupid simple IRAC. UBE/MEE model answers tend to use CRAC, but I’ve also seen UBE takers use IRAC just fine. (Generally, you can’t go wrong with IRAC, but keep in mind the format that your state likes to see by checking your state bar’s sample/model answers. Stay formulaic: I, R, A (which may include mini IRACs for each element or sub-issue), then C. It just jumped to the conclusion that Doug owed a duty to Harry. Incorrect rule aside, the applicant didn’t even apply any facts. If you say what you think without a basis in some established principle, then it’s just an opinion, not an argument. Include the rule statement even if-especially if-it seems inherent or obvious. “ Show your work,” as they say in math classes. The general rule for breach is simple and inherent, but it still needs to be said. It helps to say what the rule is first: Duty is breached where defendant’s conduct falls below the level required by the applicable standard of care owed to plaintiff. Essay A at least stated the “reasonably prudent person” standard as a “rule.” This sounds like an application of some unstated rule about breach. It starts by saying Doug was driving and texting, then says a reasonably prudent person wouldn’t do so. Part of knowing a rule is understanding it, but sometimes, the other side is knowing specific standards like “foreseeable,” “reasonable” or “necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.” 2. Make sure you know the correct standard for the issue you’re talking about. “Duty” in a negligence-type analysis is a “duty not to subject any foreseeable plaintiff to unreasonable risk of injury.” The rule is that this duty is owed to foreseeable plaintiffs, although there’s a split on who is foreseeable, as identified by the Cardozo-Andrews distinction in Essay A. Either way, Essay B failed to say what the duty of care is. Sounds like a nice rule for life in general.Īt best, it’s a statement of the standard of care (extent of duty). Essay A stated a complete rule, while Essay B stated an inaccurate or irrelevant rule.Įssay B states under the Duty heading that “he general duty for all persons is to act like a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.” Here’s what made Essay A better - and how do the same to make your essays stand out (in a good way): 1. You may find that “originating”-coming up with words to write-is harder than merely exposing yourself to the material and getting familiar with it.Īll the more reason to actually do it now and learn the pain of creating. How can you seize the grader’s limited attention to tip the scales in your favor?.What did both do well, and what could Essay A have avoided?.What are 3 distinctions between the excerpts that I think made the difference?.We’ll go over these excerpts so that you can be a little bit more extraordinary at essay writing.įair warning, it’s going to be a pretty technical discussion but one that people have found helpful in the past: For simplicity, I chose excerpts focusing on the negligence per se analysis and omitted causation and damages. Here are Essay B and the question again for context. This doesn’t mean only A did good things or that A can’t improve on this particular excerpt. (Yeah, they’re actually not reptilian robots □)Įssay A scored higher. Why did you pick your answer?īefore I reveal the winner, can I just say how this shows how subjective essay grading is? Can you tell which of these essays scored higher than the other? Take a look at these excerpts, and take a guess.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |