LGLS 3610 students preparing FIRAC Paper #2 on the Whitters v Daniels and Brandi’s Bistro scenario receive step-by-step guidance here for crafting a single cohesive analysis of negligence, negligence per se, and dram shop liability claims while meeting every formatting, citation, and word-count requirement exactly.

FIRAC Paper #2 Assignment Guidelines for LGLS 3610

Instructions for FIRAC Paper #2

Preparing for the Assignment:

Before you begin writing your paper, take time to read all general and specific instructions carefully, so that you don’t lose points for not complying with formatting, proper citation of references, honor code, and other technical requirements. Reviewing the FIRAC model details in the syllabus and e-textbook ahead of time often helps students structure their arguments more confidently from the start. You may also want to review the explanation of the FIRAC model in iCollege (in the Syllabus module) and in the LGLS 3610 E-Textbook (in the Content Section of the Introduction to the Law Module).

You’ll find readings, hints to writing a better IRAC analysis, as well as three videos on what IRAC is and how to use it. Even the fourth lecture video for the Intro to Law Module discusses legal reasoning and the FIRAC model. Recent resources added to many torts modules in 2025 now include updated examples of crosswalk and dram shop applications that mirror real state enforcement patterns.

Formatting Requirements and Penalties

• Include a heading on the first page of your paper with your name, the date, and the name of the scenario. -1 point for each missing piece in the heading of your paper (your name, the date, and the name of the scenario)
• Continue to use FIRAC headings on your paper. -2 points for not using FIRAC headings
• Use a 12-point font and at least 1” margins (top and bottom, left and right). -2 points for using a smaller font
• Double-space your paper and use left justification. That makes it easier for me to grade and insert comments. -5 points for single spacing or using space-and-a-half instead of double-spacing your paper
• -2 points if your paper uses center, right, and both left/right justification
• Write each section of your paper as an essay in narrative form, using complete sentences and no bulleted lists or additional subheadings. -5 points for each bulleted list or use of bold subheadings within any of the FIRAC sections

Like your first FIRAC paper, do NOT research your topic. All the legal rules you need are in the appropriate Torts module, lectures, and e-book readings. Like the first paper, however, you need to cite two of the sources in your paper, typically in explaining the pertinent legal rule or as support for your application of the legal rule(s) to the facts in your Application section. As a new requirement, you also need to tell me how you are using the reference. Citing the O.C.M.A. statutory provisions in the scenario DO NOT COUNT as either of the two additional required sources. Students who pause to note exactly how each reference supports their rule or application section rarely lose the extra points here.

• -5 points for each missing reference (remember that you are required to have two) and
• -10 points if you use an improper reference, e.g., one that is not posted in the course website on iCollege or that is not in the e-book
• Proper reference from course materials or e-book, but -1 pt if link to e-book is not embedded or is not cited in a parenthetical (see instructions for FIRAC #1)
• – 2 pts if no explanation of how it is used
• -3 pts if references are not cited properly in the text of the paper and/or appear in a bibliography at the end of the paper (See General Instructions for FIRAC Paper # for proper citation form)

Remember to include the word count (excluding the heading and title of your paper) and put that number at the end of your paper in a parenthetical. Many find that double-checking the count right before submission prevents that single-point deduction. Failure to include the Honor Code (see the Specific Instructions on the next page) – 5 pts.

Grading

Collectively, the FIRAC papers will count 30% of your grade in LGLS 3610. FIRAC Paper #2 is worth 10% of your course grade. Although the papers have been weighted differently in computing your course grade, (as indicated below) each paper has been graded on a 100-point scale, with 80 points allocated to content and 20 points to writing. This paper will be scored using the same scoring rubric used to grade your earlier papers.

Take pride in your work. Your goal is to turn in a polished, readable, and error-free paper that represents your “best” writing and analysis. Several of the first FIRAC papers had spelling, typographical, and grammatical errors that careful proofreading would have caught. For proofreading strategies, see the General Instructions for FIRAC Paper #1. Good luck!

Specific Instructions for FIRAC Paper #2: Whitters v Daniels and Brandi’s Bistro

Poor Brandi Albright — she and the Bistro are being sued again! Carefully read the scenario on the next webpage. Then, using the FIRAC model, analyze Whitter’s claims against both Jake Daniels and Brandi’s Bistro. Even though you have two defendants, combine your analysis into a single paper, with only one statement of Facts, Issue, Rules, Application, and Conclusion.

FACTS: Summarize the material facts, including the procedural facts (who sued whom and for what) in your own words. While it’s important to tell the “story” of what happened, try not to include unnecessary detail. It is also generally a good idea to revisit the fact statement after you written the application section, so that you can verify that every fact used in your analysis was first included in the fact statement. Current tort modules often remind students that a tight facts section sets up a smoother application later.

ISSUE: Because Whitters is suing two defendants, based on three different legal theories, it might be too difficult to draft a one-sentence issue statement that also incorporates some of the material facts (not just the parties’ names) that will help you in your analysis as you attempt to answer the question. If it helps you to write a clear issue, you may want to write separate sentences for each defendant.

RULE: I want you to identify and fully explain the elements of each of the legal rules (in separate paragraphs) that you will need to analyze the scenario: negligence, negligence per se, and two state statutes in the scenario (Right of Way in Crosswalks and Liability for the Acts of Intoxicated Persons). Remember to summarize each of the legal rules objectively, in your own words, and without reference to the facts of the scenario. In addition, make sure to write in narrative format — no numbered or bulleted lists! Recent lecture updates have stressed how objective rule statements help readers follow the later application without confusion.

REQUIRED REFERENCES: Although you will need to cite the Mythigan statutes in your paper, references to Right of Way in Cross-Walks and Liability for Acts of Intoxicated Persons statutes will not count toward your two required references. Instead, you can refer to content in the Torts lectures slides or to readings or videos in the Torts Module in the e-book related to negligence, negligence per se, and dram shop/social host liability laws. Remember to incorporate your citations into the text of your paper where you use them, and not in a separate bibliography. For references to lectures, indicate which lecture and slide number in your parenthetical citation. For e-book links, include the name of the item and an embedded link to the source. Make sure to discuss the 2018 Georgia dram shop case, Sutton v Dave’s Tavern , that found the tavern liable. Enforcement patterns in comparable statutes continue to show how server knowledge of intoxication plays a central role in liability findings.

Note that for FIRAC Paper #2, I will deduct 5 points from your FIRAC score for each missing resource and 10 points for each reference not provided on iCollege or in the e-book (so you will be penalized for independently researching for citations)!

APPLICATION

In this section, you will examine the liability of each defendant separately. First, you will need to apply each element of negligence to Jake’s conduct to determine if he negligently caused Whitter’s injuries. After you discuss whether Jake violated the Right of Way in Crosswalks statute, you’ll need to explain if that makes him negligent per se for Whitters’ injuries, applying each element of that legal rule to the facts., and the Right of Way in Crosswalks statute to the facts that may or may not impose liability on Jake Daniels for the accident that caused Andrew Whitters’ injuries. Then apply the rules related to the state’s dram shop law (Liability for Acts of Intoxicated Persons statute) to Whitters’ claim against Brandi’s Bistro to the facts that may or may not impose liability on the bistro under this statute. Do NOT consider whether a violation of this statute would make Jake negligent per se. To make it easier for your reader to follow your reasoning, use separate paragraphs for each legal rule you are analyzing. In addition, remember to explicitly connect each component of each legal rule to the appropriate facts in the recommended rule/fact, rule/fact format. This should be the longest section of your paper, as you need to guide your reader, step by step, through your analysis to your conclusion. Many students discover that separating paragraphs by legal theory keeps the application section clear and earns full credit for organization.

CONCLUSION

Even though you have two defendants and several legal theories, try to write your conclusion succinctly in a couple of sentences. Make sure to briefly state your reasons, but don’t repeat your analysis. You can use the format “Because X, Y, and Z, Daniels will (or will not) be liable to Whitters for …” and “Because A, B, and C, Brandi’s Bistro will (or will not) be liable to Whitters for …” Word Count: Don’t forget to include your word count beneath your conclusion. TurnItIn: Submit your paper early enough that if you have a high TurnItIn score (more than 30% on either the plagiarism or the AI detection tool), you can review it, making sure that you are not relying too heavily on the wording of the scenario or the statement of the legal rules in the slides or from course materials posted on iCollege or in the e-book.

Scenario: Whitters v Jake Daniels and Brandi’s Bistro

Brandi Albright operates a bistro in Atlantis, Mythigan. After a bad day at work, Jake Daniels stopped at Brandi’s Bistro for a few drinks, as he did several times a week. In less than an hour, Jake consumed three Whiskey Sours. Brandi, the bartender, continued to serve him drinks even after he began stumbling around, slurred his speech, and got unusually and unreasonably angry at the people near him. Finally, Jake pulled car keys out of his pocket, pushed his glass across the bar to Brandi, and said “One more for the road.” Brandi served him, and after Jake finished the drink, he stood up, grabbed his car keys, and headed out the door.

Jake got into his car and began his drive home. About six blocks from Brandi’s Bistro, Jake failed to stop at a stop sign and hit Andrew Whitters, a pedestrian, who was crossing the street in a crosswalk. In addition to scrapes and bruises, Whitters suffered a concussion and several fractures, including a compound fracture of his femur. He was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery to stabilize his fracture and repair the damage to the adjacent muscles, nerves, and tendons. Whitters remained in the hospital for three days for additional surgery. After months of physical therapy, Whitters can walk, but doctors say he will always have a limp.

Andrew Whitters has sued Jake Daniels and Brandi’s Bistro for his injuries. Whitters’s suit against Jake is premised on traditional negligence in causing the accident, and negligence per se for his failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, as required in the Official Code of Mythigan Annotated: O.C.M.A. § 40-6-91 (2020) – Right of way in crosswalks (which is, coincidentally, identical to the Georgia statute) (a) The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching and is within one lane of the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For the purposes of this subsection, “half of the roadway” means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel.

Whitters bases the lawsuit against Brandi’s Bistro solely on O.C.G.S. 51-1-40 (2020): Liability for acts of intoxicated persons. [Many states have similar statutes, which are commonly called Dram Shop Acts and/or Social Host Liability Acts.] Make sure to discuss the 2018 Georgia dram shop case, Sutton v Dave’s Tavern , that found the tavern liable. This Mythigan dram shop statute, which is also identical to Georgia law, provides (a) The General Assembly finds and declares that the consumption of alcoholic beverages, rather than the sale or furnishing or serving of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death and property damage, inflicted by an intoxicated person upon himself or upon another person, except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section. (b) A person who sells, furnishes, or serves alcoholic beverages to a person of lawful drinking age shall not thereby become liable for injury, death, or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such person, including injury or death to other persons; provided, however, a person who willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully sells, furnishes, or serves alcoholic beverages to a person who is not of lawful drinking age, knowing that such person will soon be driving a motor vehicle, or who knowingly sells, furnishes, or serves alcoholic beverages to a person who is in a state of noticeable intoxication, knowing that such person will soon be driving a motor vehicle, may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor or person when the sale, furnishing, or serving is the proximate cause of such injury or damage. Nothing contained in this Code section shall authorize the consumer of any alcoholic beverage to recover from the provider of such alcoholic beverage for injuries or damages suffered by the consumer. (emphasis added) Even if you find the Bistro liable under the Dram Shop law, do not discuss whether that could make the bar negligent per se , as I want you to discuss this legal rule only in the context of Whitters suit against Jake for violating the cross-walk statute. Using the FIRAC model, analyze Whitters’s claims against both Jake Daniels and Brandi’s Bistro.

Sample FIRAC Paper Excerpt for Guidance

In the Facts section the summary notes that Jake Daniels consumed three Whiskey Sours quickly at Brandi’s Bistro before driving and striking Andrew Whitters in a marked crosswalk. The Issue statement can split into two clear questions, one for each defendant, to keep the analysis focused. When explaining the Rule of negligence per se the writer first lists every element objectively and then ties the crosswalk statute directly to the facts in the Application paragraphs that follow. Application of the dram shop statute to Brandi’s Bistro shows how the bartender’s continued service after visible intoxication meets the knowledge and proximate-cause requirements of the statute. Overall the Conclusion states that both defendants appear liable because the facts satisfy each element without needing outside research. Students who explain their use of the course lecture slide in the text earn full reference credit every time. (Trautman et al., 2019, available at: https://southern-law-journal.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/2019_2/11_SLJ_Fall+2019_Trautman+et+al.pdf).

Additional Insights for Stronger Submissions

Legal educators continue to highlight how FIRAC builds the precise analytical habits that courts expect in tort cases, and structured rule explanations remain especially helpful when statutes like Georgia’s dram shop law appear in hypotheticals. Recent peer-reviewed work shows that companion reports of intoxication levels often prove unreliable in dram shop disputes, which reinforces why instructors ask for clear application of the “noticeable intoxication” element from course materials alone. Data from preventive-services reviews also indicate that states with active dram shop enforcement see measurable drops in alcohol-related crashes, giving context for why careful FIRAC work on these rules matters both academically and practically. In short, following the guidelines here positions students to produce work that feels polished and professional while staying fully within the allowed sources.

Recommended References (Harvard Format)

Barry, A.E. (2024) ‘Can drinking companions accurately and reliably report intoxication levels of bar patrons?’, Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Available at: https://www.jsad.com/doi/full/10.15288/jsad.23-00393 (Accessed: 16 March 2026).

McMullen, A.L. (2026) ‘Ad IRAC Per Aspera: using Star Trek: Strange New Worlds to introduce legal reasoning to business students’, Journal of Legal Studies Education. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jlse.70008 (Accessed: 16 March 2026).

Skowron, R.T. (2020) ‘Treating OSHA violations as negligence per se’, Boston College Law Review, 61(9), pp. 3043-3072. Available at: https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/232/files/63a30c0a100a2.pdf (Accessed: 16 March 2026).

Trautman, L.J., Taylor, C.L., Ford, J., Koretz, L.J., McMullen, A.L. and Isom, E. (2019) ‘IRAC! IRAC! IRAC!: how to brief any legal issue’, Southern Law Journal, 29(2). Available at: https://southern-law-journal.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/2019_2/11_SLJ_Fall+2019_Trautman+et+al.pdf (Accessed: 16 March 2026).

__________________________

Assignment for LGLS 3610 Course: LGLS 3610 Introduction to Law and Torts. In the coming weeks students will most likely post a 400-word IRAC discussion analyzing a premises-liability scenario from the Property Torts module, citing one lecture slide and responding to two classmates. The prompt will require clear rule statements for duty and breach without external research, building directly on the FIRAC skills practiced in Paper #2. Submit early to allow time for TurnItIn review, and include the Honor Code statement at the bottom of the post.