Law Students

What is IRAC?

Hypothetical: Kim decided to get three star tattoos on her forehead, on the right side above her eyebrow. She went to a well-known and skilled tattoo artist named Ralph who agreed to put three stars on her forehead exactly where she indicated and approved. Instead, he put a larger constellation of twelve stars because in his opinion it looked much better. Because the extra stars were small and clustered around the larger stars, Kim did not know he was applying the additional tattoos until he was done, and suffered no additional pain as a result.

Kim can sue in tort on what theory?

(NB: for purposes of this post, we're just gonna do Battery.)

Issue: Is Ralph liable for battery when Kim consented to being tattooed?

Rule: Battery is intentionally bringing about harmful or offensive contact with another person, without the victim's consent.

Application:

Intent requires that Ralph do a volitional act that ultimately results in contact with Kim. Ralph clearly intended to bring about contact with Kim's face using his tattoo needle as part of the tattoo process. Kim consented to Ralph's using the tattoo needle to apply three tattoos in a specific location. Ralph exceeded the scope of her consent when he applied twelve tattoos. Even if Kim suffered no more pain for the twelve tattoos as she would have for the three, a reasonable person of ordinary sensitivity would find the Ralph's actions offensive. Tattoos are (nearly) permanent body alterations, usually very personal to the recipient, and even though Ralph thought it "looked much better," it would offend a reasonable person expecting three stars on her face and finding a dozen.

Conclusion:
Ralph will be liable for battery.

The CIRAC variation just asks you to begin and end your analysis with the conclusion.

Full post as published by Wish I Would Have Known on June 29, 2009 (boomark / email).