Legal Environment of Business

Instructions. This exercise is designed for you to demonstrate further your understanding and use of the IRAC process to analyze issues of liability that appear in the case scenario below. This time, unlike Writing Assignment 1 where you were given the Rule and guided through the Analysis, you must create all parts of IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) for your paper. Start with the two issues and write an issue statement that is a legal question (again, just like you did in Writing Assignment 1, although this time the issue(s) wont have to do with ethics, but instead should involve tort liability). 

To put this into the IRAC framework, you should:
(1) Identify liability issue(s) (Issue);
(2) Identify and describe the legal rules and/or laws that apply to those issues (Rule);
(3)    Connect relevant facts (from the fact scenario) to the Rule(s) you identified in paragraph 2 (Analysis); and
(4) Summarize your conclusions regarding tort liability (Conclusion).

Remember  the Analysis is not a restatement of the facts, and is not an assertion of your conclusion; instead, the Analysis is where you apply the law to the facts to fully explain to the reader why and how there is or is not liability. The paper should be no more than three (3) pages long, double-spaced. The grading rubric will be used to score your paper.

Case Scenario. Danny, a computer hacker and aspiring comedian, founded the Society of Pranksters, a network of prank callers. Danny records and then uploads his prank calls to YouTube. In one such prank, Danny called a pizza store (Store) claiming to be from the corporate office, and convinced the Stores employee to give him the names, phone numbers, and order details of the people who had most recently placed orders. Juvenile hilarity ensued as Danny then made a prank call to one of the individuals who had just ordered a pizza (Customer). In the call, Danny (falsely) represented that he was the manager of the pizza store, and told Customerwho was a strict vegetarianthat his pizza would have to include sausage, because the sausage would otherwise go to waste. The conversation lasted about 15 minutes and ended with the frustrated Customer calling the Store and cancelling his order (for which he had not yet paid). The Store had already made the pizza and was prepared to deliver it. Danny was on his cell phone and was driving his car at the time of the prank. As he went to hang up his phone at the conclusion of the call, Danny took his eyes off of the road for several seconds and collided with Pams car, which was properly stopped at a red light. Pam suffered several physical injuries and her car was totaled.

Discussion and guidance. This hypothetical is more complex than the one for Writing Assignment 1 because there are multiple actors involved here. Focus on identifying the torts in this scenario. Perhaps the best place to start is to map out the parties mentioned and their relationships with one another. Then, you should identify who the plaintiffs are (there will be two of them, since we have two separate claims in this scenario), and also identify the tortfeasor (or defendant). Ask yourself who has been injured. Who has suffered a financial loss, and whose conduct caused those losses? Be sure to consult the Critical Paper 2 flow chart for additional guidance.