Using the IRAC method explained on page 16 of your textbook, examine the following case: Jones v. City of Seattle, Washington. Please organize your response in the following manner: - I (Issue) - (explain what the issue is in the case.) - R (Rule) - (state the rule of law used to decide this issue.) - A (Analysis) - (explain the court's reasons for their decision) - C (Conclusion) - (explain the conclusion of the case - the final decision.) Note: There are often many issue to be decided in a court case. If you look a case up online, it is likely you will not find the correct issue to address right away. The textbook issue is what I am looking for in your response. Any other issues addressed will be marked as incorrect. Assume you are defending the City of Seattle in the case discussed in Question 1. As their lawyer you can choose either to argue that one of the five elements of a negligence case (duty, breach of duty, injury, actual cause or proximate cause) is missing from the plaintiff's case OR you can use the following negligence defenses; superseding or intervening event, assumption of risk, contributory or comparative negligence. Chose one element of the negligence case to argue that you think is missing AND one of the defenses to argue applies in this case. For each of them discuss why they should relieve your client from having to pay damages to Mr. Jones. You may included additional facts not given in the case if you need them. Example: (Because I have chosen this for my example, you may not use it as your choice). Duty - As the city's lawyer I think we are not liable because the city does not have a duty to protect its firefighters when they are not working A duty indicates we are responsible for them at the time of their injury. Mr Jones was going to the bathroom, not on his way to a fire, when he was hurt so we do not have a duty to protect him. Example: (Because I have chosen this as my example, you may not use it as your choice.) Superseding event - As the city's lawyer I say we are not liable for Mr. Jones' injuries because there was a superseding event. Another firefighter woke up at the same time as Mr. Jones and knocked over a lamp. Mr Jones tripped on the lamp and was already falling when he went through the fire pole opening in the floor. The city is only liable for foreseeable events leading to the plaintiff's injury and these two events occurring together is certainly not foreseeable. Using the IRAC method explained on page 16 of your textbook, examine the following case: Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Dolinski. Please organize your response in the following manner: - I (Issue) - (explain what the issue is in the case.) - R (Rule) - (state the rule of law used to decide this issue.) - A (Analysis) - (explain the court's reasons for their decision) - C (Conclusion) - (explain the conclusion of the case - the final decision.) Note: There are often many issue to be decided in a court case. If you look a case up online, it is likely you will not find the correct issue to address right away. The textbook issue is what I am looking for in your response. Any other issues addressed will be marked as incorrect. Assume you are the lawyer for Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company in the case discussed in Question 3. Since it is clear the defendant was injured and it is a strict liability case you want to argue that the bottle with a decomposing mouse at the bottom is not "defective." Look at the description of product defects on pages 118-119 (defect in manufacture, defect in design, failure to warn and defect in packaging) and explain to me (the court) why they do not apply to your client's product