IRAC (Issue Rule Argument Conclusion) IRAC is a basic method tobrief a case. To better understand the cases we read we need to beable to identify the relevant factual and legal issues in them. Howdo we do this? We look at the underlying facts of the case. In Liv. Yellow Cab the plaintiff turned into a gas station when a cabcoming in the opposite direction crashed into plaintiff's car onthe rear passenger side. The jury found both drivers were negligentbut the cab driver was more at fault than plaintiff. The law inCalifornia before Li v. Yellow Cab was that contributory negligence(careless conduct contributing to plaintiff's own injuries) byplaintiff barred plaintiff's recovery. But in Li v. Yellow Cab theCalifornia Supreme Court abandoned the contributory negligencedoctrine for the comparative negligence doctrine. Under thecomparative negligence doctrine a plaintiff is not barred fromrecovery. Defendant's liability is in proportion to fault. So ifthe cab driver was 80% at fault and Li was 20% at fault Li (insteadof being barred under the doctrine of contributory negligence)could recover under the doctrine of comparative negligence 80% ofher damages (pain, suffering, property damage, lost wages, medicalexpenses, etc.). If she proved $40,000 in total damages and thedefendant was 80% at fault her judgment would be $32,000. Under theIRAC method the issue is always in the form of a question; the rulederives from a source of law (constitution, statute, common law orcase law, or administrative law); the argument applies the facts ofthe case to the law; and, the conclusion identifies who wins. Posta reply that puts the following sentences in an order that make aproper brief: Comparative negligence is a doctrine based onliability in proportion to fault. Whether or not comparativenegligence should be applied in this case? Plaintiff is entitled to80% of her proven damages. By determining which party (or parties)is at fault and to what degree a fair and just result can beobtained rather than completely barring recovery to the party whois less at fault. In your reply use the following setup: Issue:(Insert the correct sentence) Rule: (Insert the correct sentence)Argument: (Insert the correct sentence) Conclusion: (Insert thecorrect sentence)