Time Line:

Assignments

• Module 03 Analyzing Using IRAC
• Module 04 Distinguishing Cases to Enhance Analysis
• Module 05 Explaining What You've Learned Through a Legal Memorandum

Purpose of Assignment: The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate the use of IRAC to analyze a fact pattern.

Course Competency: Apply legal sources to a specific set of facts using the Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion (IRAC) method of writing.

Instructions:

Content:

• For this assignment, you will be preparing your own analysis of a fact pattern, using IRAC. The fact pattern involves the Lucky Duck bar and what is known as Dram Shop liability, which refers to liability that can be imposed against a bar when a patron served by the bar ends up hurting someone else. The main issue is whether the Lucky Duck bar can be held liable for patron Michael's actions in hitting Mindy with his car, causing her injury. To determine this, you will review three cases to determine what the rules are, then use IRAC to reach a conclusion.

Steps to Follow:

First: review the following fact pattern:

• Steven owns a bar, The Lucky Duck.The Lucky Duck employs five bartenders, all of whom he has provided training on mixing drinks and general employment issues. It also employs a security person on weekends, when the patrons are a bit rowdier. The Lucky Duck has posted signs in the restroom giving patrons the phone number for local cab companies in the event they are too intoxicated to drink home.
• One Saturday night, Michael went to The Lucky Duck with a group of friends to celebrate his promotion.His group of friends was ordering rounds of shots from all the bartenders, and large beers all night, toasting to Michael's recent success. As the night went on, the group became more intoxicated and rowdier. At 1 am, one of the bartenders, Melissa, told Michael that it was his "last round," as he was staggering when he walked up to the bar. After finishing that beer, Michael had his friend go buy him another beer from a different bartender, Sally.Shortly after he finished his last drink, Michael decided that he was ready to head home.Security watched as Michael walked out towards the parking lot, muttering "what a drunk."
• On his way home, Michael ran a stop sign and ran into Mindy, who was driving home from a late shift as a nurse at the local hospital. Mindy was severely injured with a concussion, fractured ribs, internal bleeding, a broken arm, and lacerations to her face and hands, and contusions where her seatbelt dug into her. Mindy was forced to take several months off work to recover, and her hospital bills were large.
• Mindy sought out an attorney, who told her that she should sue Michael.Michael however, lost his job after the accident and was drowning in debt.Therefore, the attorney told Mindy that she should also sue The Lucky Duck for overserving Michael.
• You should discuss the liability of The Lucky Duck and any potential outcome to a suit against The Lucky Duck using IRAC.You should use the case law and facts provided in your analysis.

Second: read the following article on Dram Shop Law in Minnesota:

Dram Shop Law in Minnesota, by Vicki Hruby. Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, PLLP. Retrieved from:http://jlolaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dram_shop_materials_2011.pdf

This article discusses dram shop liability and the three cases you have to read for this assignment:

1. Mjos v. Howard Lake
2. Rambaum v. Swisher
3. Trail v. Elk River

Third: read the three cases listed above to determine what rules apply in a dram shop liability action.

Fourth: Using the IRAC method, determine whether the Lucky Duck should be held liable for Mindy's injuries. You should provide the issue, state the rules you obtain from the cases provided, analyze the facts considering the case law, and then draw a conclusion, using the IRAC method.

Format: your paper should be formatted as follows:

1. Write the caption "Issue," then include the issue.
2. Write the caption "Rule," then include the rule from the first case (Rambaum), as well as the proper Bluebook citation to the case.
3. Write the caption "Analysis," then provide your analysis of the Rambaum rule to the fact pattern.
4. Write the caption "Rule," then include the rule from the second case (Mjos), as well as the proper Bluebook citation to the case
5. Write the caption "Analysis," then provide your analysis of the Mjos rule to the fact pattern.
6. Write the caption "Rule," then include the rule from the third case (Trail), as well as the proper Bluebook citation to the case
7. Write the caption "Analysis," then provide your analysis of the Trail rule to the fact pattern.
8. Write the caption "Conclusion," then provide your ultimate answer to the issue presented, based on your analysis.

NOTE:

• Remember to analyze the fact pattern given about the Lucky Duck. You are not deciding whether the cases you had to read were correct. You are taking the rules of law from those cases and applying them to the Lucky Duck fact pattern to reach a conclusion to the issue of whether the Lucky Duck can be held liable to Mindy for her injuries.
• Ignore the repealed statutes as found in Mjos and Trail cases (Minn. Stat. 340.14, 340.73). The relevant statutes to focus on are Minn. Stat. 340A.801, 340A.502.