Using the fact pattern from Analogical Application , draft an analysis using IRAC. Your analysis should discuss the issue, rule(s) from the cases, and application of the facts. Think about what the cases and the charts we went over in class. You should compare and contrast our case to the precedent cases. How are they the same? How are they different?

Exercise: Analogical Application

Your supervising attorney asks you to analyze whether the client, David Peterson, is liable for negligence.

Client Facts: David Peterson kept a toolbox in his basement. The toolbox contained numerous tools, including a hammer and nails. Mr. Peterson's eleven-year-old son was playing in the basement with Phil Aarons, a nine-year-old friend. While playing, the boys knocked a baseboard loose. The son went to the toolbox and took out a hammer and nail to fix the board. While he attempted to strike the nail with the hammer, the nail flew out of the wood and struck the plaintiff in the face.

Question 1: You do some research and find the following case in your jurisdiction: Smith v. Allen

• Facts: D left a golf club lying in his backyard. D's 11-year-old son (D2) found the golf club, swung it at a stone, and hit the nine-year-old P in the face with the club.
• Holding: D was not negligent for leaving the golf club lying on the ground.
• Reasoning: A golf club is not intrinsically dangerous: it is not commonly used as a weapon (unlike a knife).

What does Smith v. Allen mean for the client's case? Will a court find Mr. Peterson negligent or not? Why or why not?

How do you know?

• First, compare the facts from Smith with the facts of the client's case
• Determine how the facts in Smith are similar to the facts in the client's case
• Determine how the facts in Smith are different from the facts in the client's case
• Determine if the facts are similar enough that the court will reach the same holding as Smith, or determine whether the facts are different enough that the court will reach a different holding from Smith.

A chart can help you accomplish this:

	Smith	Client Case
Facts	Golf Club	Hammer and Nails
	Lying in backyard	In toolbox in basement
	D swung at rock, hit P	D used hammer and nail to fix board, nail hit P
	P's Face injured	P's Face injured
	P = 9	P = 9
	Wrongdoer = 11	Wrongdoer = 11
Holding	No negligence	??
Rules	Person has duty to protect others from unreasonable risks.
	An "obviously and intrinsically dangerous" object creates an unreasonable risk
	Breach of duty = negligent, liable for damages
Reasoning	Golf club is not intrinsically dangerous	??
	Golf club not a weapon

• How do the facts compare?
  • Golf club v. Hammer and Nails
  • Backyard v. Basement
  • Both plaintiffs injured in face
  • Both wrongdoers are 11 years old; both Ps are 9 years old
• Determine which facts are key to the court's decision:
  • Golf Club, swung at rock, hit P
  • Matters that both Ps were injured, but probably not that they were injured in face.
  • That both wrongdoers are minors matter, but 11 years old probably does not
• Are a hammer and nails like a golf club?
  • Are a hammer and nails "intrinsically dangerous"?
  • Are a hammer and nails a "weapon"?
  • What about each father's conduct? Leaving instrument in backyard v. in toolbox in basement?

Assume you do more research and find the Green v. Kendall case in your jurisdiction. Will this case change your analysis? Why or why not?

Green v. Kendall

• Facts: 11-year-old D was playing golf with his family. Even though the P was in plain sight, the D teed off without yelling "fore" and hit the P with his golf ball.
• Holding: D was negligent; held to adult standard of care.
• Reasoning: D is held to an adult standard of care because a golf ball is a dangerous instrument. A golf ball is a "dangerous missile" that can injure somebody. Hitting a golf ball may be more dangerous than firing a gun or throwing a stone due to the lack of control a golfer has over the direction of the ball. Policy: golf is popular, courses are crowded, accidents happen. Children should be held to an adult standard.

Ask yourself:

• Does Green overrule Smith?
• Do Green and Smith decide the same issues?
• What impact does Green have on Smith?

Use a chart to compare the cases:

	Smith	Green	Client Case
Facts	Golf Club	Golf Ball	Hammer and Nails
	Lying in backyard	Playing golf on a course	In toolbox in basement
	D swung at rock, hit P	D swung at golf ball, did not yell fore, hit P	D used hammer and nail to fix board, nail hit P
	P's Face injured		P's Face injured
	P = 11		P = 9
	D = 11	D = 11	D = 11
Holding	No negligence	Negligence	??
		Child held to an adult standard
Rules	Person has duty to protect others from unreasonable risks.
	An "obviously and intrinsically dangerous" object creates an unreasonable risk
	Breach of duty = negligent, liable for damages
		A child is held to an adult standard of care if he or she uses a dangerous instrument
Reasoning	Golf club is not intrinsically dangerous	Golf ball is a dangerous instrument	??
	Golf club not a weapon	D lacks control over a golf ball after he hits it
		Need to protect people: Golf is popular, courses are crowded