# Intesar S. - Torts 009 (Lifeguard/Entrustment/Wrongful Death) **Email:** intesarsarama95@gmail.com **Date:** May 28, 2026 **Packet:** torts_009 **Subject:** TORTS **Word Count:** 1,119 **Timer Mode:** timed_30_min **Time Spent:** 45 min 41 sec --- ## Score Summary | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | **Band** | 2/6 (Significant gaps -- below passing threshold) | | **Raw Score** | 0.301 | | **Calibrated Score** | 0.301 | | **Confidence** | 0.367 | | **Boundary Distance** | 0.049 | ### Component Scores | Component | Score | Display | |-----------|-------|---------| | Issue Spotting | 35% | 35% | | Fact Usage | 35% | 14% | | Rule Statement | 28% | 28% | | Conclusion | 35% | 35% | | Analysis Depth | 24.5% | 9.8% | ### Whole Essay Modifiers | Modifier | Value | |----------|-------| | Coherence | 0 | | Off-point | 0 | | Incompleteness | 0 | --- ## Issue Findings ### Issue 1: Duty to Act / Special Relationship - **Strength:** Weak | **Score:** 0/1.0 - **Recognized:** NO - All checklist items FAIL -- issue entirely omitted ### Issue 2: Negligent Entrustment and Negligent Hiring - **Strength:** Weak | **Score:** 0/1.0 - **Recognized:** NO - **Spotting:** FAIL (0.3) -- mentioned hiring in passing, never identified the legal theory - **Rule:** FAIL (0.1) -- no rule statement for negligent hiring or entrustment - **Facts:** FAIL (0.2) -- mentioned hiring but not facts tied to elements - **Analysis:** FAIL (0.2) -- no connection of facts to elements - **Conclusion:** FAIL (0.2) -- no conclusion on this theory ### Issue 3: Wrongful Death and Survival Actions - **Strength:** Strong | **Score:** 0.90/1.0 - **Recognized:** YES - **Spotting:** PASS (1.0) - **Rule:** PASS (0.8) - **Facts:** PASS (1.0) - **Analysis:** PASS (0.7) - **Conclusion:** PASS (1.0) --- ## Structural Assessment **Overall Level:** Adequate | Sub-Assessment | Level | Notes | |---------------|-------|-------| | IRAC Separation | Adequate | Mixes conclusions with factual assertions | | Organization by Call | Strong | Follows call structure with headers | | Conclusion Quality | Weak | Bare assertions, lack synthesis | **SHEP Eyes Narrative:** > You have a good grasp of the big picture by following the call structure, but your analysis needs to be tighter. Right now, you often state a rule and then jump straight to a conclusion. You need to bridge that gap by explicitly applying the facts to the elements of the rule. --- ## Overall Narrative This essay has critical problems that would likely result in a failing score. Your performance is characterized by a failure to identify key legal issues and a tendency to provide conclusory statements rather than rigorous legal analysis. On the bar exam, a 'conclusion' is worth almost nothing without the 'analysis' that precedes it. You must adopt a structured approach: state the rule, define its elements, and then explicitly apply the facts to each element. Your analysis currently lacks the necessary 'analytical bridge' required to connect facts to law. For example, when discussing liability, you must explicitly state the elements of the cause of action and then explain how the specific facts from the prompt satisfy or fail each element. Your current approach of stating a rule and immediately jumping to a conclusion ignores the core requirement of the bar exam: demonstrating your ability to apply the law to the facts provided. --- ## Issue-Level Feedback **Issue 1 (Duty to Act):** This issue was entirely omitted from your analysis. On the bar exam, failing to identify a major legal issue like the duty to act -- especially when the facts involve a potential special relationship or a failure to intervene -- results in significant point loss. You must train yourself to scan the facts for relationships (e.g., parent-child, employer-employee, common carrier) that trigger an affirmative duty to act, as these are classic bar exam testing points. **Issue 2 (Negligent Entrustment/Hiring):** While you mentioned the club's hiring of the employee, your treatment of this issue is critically underdeveloped. You failed to articulate the specific elements of negligent hiring or entrustment, such as the employer's knowledge of the employee's unfitness or the foreseeability of the harm. Simply mentioning that 'it could be argued' is insufficient; you must state the rule elements and then explicitly map the facts to those elements. **Issue 3 (Wrongful Death/Survival):** Your analysis of wrongful death is marred by a fundamental doctrinal error: you conflated vicarious liability with direct liability and misstated the scope of parental liability. You must clearly distinguish between direct liability (the parent's own negligence in entrusting the vehicle) and vicarious liability (the parent's liability for the child's acts), and then apply the facts to each element of those distinct theories. --- ## Progression | Date | Subject | Band | Trend | |------|---------|------|-------| | May 14 | Real Property (upload) | 3/6 | -- | | May 19 | Business Associations | 4/6 | Up | | May 21 | Contracts | 4/6 | Stable | | May 28 | Torts | 2/6 | DOWN | --- ## Student's Full Essay 1. Mr. Gropher's liability to Leo Lion Club An employer is vicariously liable for an employee's torts so long as the misdoings are within the scope of employment and are not a major detour. A full time employee is held to be under the complete control of the employer. An Employee can be held personally liable for their torts for failing to act when a duty arises. Here, the club employed Mr. Gopher as a full-time, certified lifeguard, Mr.Gopher is under the complete control of the club. The Club's failed to use a simple background check which would have revealed that Mr. Gopher was fired from his previous employment as a lifeguard for failing to act during simulated emergency drill. It could be argued that the negligence of the club for hiring Mr. Gopher without a background check, is the cause in fact reason for why Mr. Gopher failed to intervene when Leo was drowning. Club, the employer is vicariously liable for Mr. Gophers failure to save Leo when he fell and mistakenly believed a child is a trespasser to whom he owed no duty to. Mr. Gopher, during the incident was under the employers control and within the scope of employment by watching the entirety of the pool. In conclusion, Mr. Gopher will likely to be found liable to Leo under vicariously liable by the Country Club and personally liable because Mr. Gopher mistakenly believed he had no duty. It can be argued that Mr. Gopher did not Trespasser No duty is owed to a trespasser who willingly enters the property of another. However, a child, under attractive nuisance doctrine, a duty is owed to the child to secure an attractive dangerous property, such as a pool. A child is unable to appreciate the risks and the child will be held to the standard of a child of similar age and intelligence. Here, while Mr. Gopher was on duty, 8 year old Leo, who's family was not a member of the club, wandered onto the property through an open gate. Leo, being only 8 years old is unable to appreciate the risks of entering a property with a pool. A child of similar age would find a pool to be "attractive". There is no further insight on the intelligence of Leo but it would be held he is of normal standard. Furthermore, Leo could not swim and slipped into the deep end of the pool, this shows that Leo's inability to swim, is common amongst children of similar age. Lastly, Mr. Gopher saw Leo fall in and watched him struggle in the water in his elevated lifeguard chair, Mr. Gopher has no defense of not seeing Leo and had the ability to see the entirety of the pool on his lifeguard chair. In conclusion, Mr. Gopher believing he had no duty to a trespasser, and not intervening was a breach of duty owed to Leo because Leo was a child who entered into the club through an open gate, that should have been secured owing Leo the utmost duty to protect any item that could attract children of similar age. 2. Claims: a. Ms. Fox for Mr. Crow's Injuries A parent is not held liable for the torts of their child. However, a parent can be held for the torts of their underage child if the parent has reason to know of the Childs misconduct and allowed the conduct knowing damage is very likely to occur. Here, Ms. Fox knew in the last year, her son Ferret had not only received a speeding ticket but had also been found at fault in two minor accidents. It can be inferred that the 16 year old, is not a safe driver and would require further guidance. Ms. Fox allowing her son to drive the vehicle, without adult supervision with the past tickets and accidents puts Ms. Fox at fault for she was aware and knew her Son was not a safe driver. When Ferret struck Mr. Crow, Ferret was distracted by his cell phone, which can be argued is not a speeding ticket. However, the minor accidents can infer that Ferret was previously distracted and continues to be distracted and therefore Ferret using his cellphone while driving causing another accident with mr. Crow. Mr. Crow, after suffering succumbed to his injuries, resulting in Ferret killing Mr. Crow. Normally, parents are not liable for the torts of their children, however, Ms. Fox knew of her sons distracted driving habits and therefore, would make Ms. Fox liable for her 16 year old minor's torts. In conclusion, Ms. Fox would likely be found liable for Mr. Crows injuries because Ms. Fox is the parent of Ferret and had the knowledge of Ferret's past misconduct and his likeliness to commit another accident. b. Otter Creek Country Club for Mr. Gopher's inaction Vicarious liability and Agent of the Country Club Vicariously liable rule above Here, the Country Club will likely to be found liable for mr. Gophers inaction, for Mr. Gopher was under the scope of employment within the employment guidelines. Furthermore, Mr. Gopher was performing as a lifeguard would normally perform by sitting on the lifeguard chair, thus, holding himself as the agent for the Country Club. Thus, as an agent of the club Mr. Gopher's torts will become the Country Club's torts and the Country club would be liable for the serious and permanent lung damage to Leo for Mr. Gopher's inaction. 3. Mrs. Crows claims on behalf of herself on Mr. Crow's estate: Wrongful death suit entails 1) a wrongful death of a family member and 2) a defendant who negligently caused the death or had reason or control of someone who caused the death. Here, Mrs. Crow would likely be able to present a wrongful death suit on behalf of herself and on behalf of Mr. Crow's estate. Mrs. Crow had suffered through the death of her husband, Mr. Crow who had succumbed to his injuries after being struck by a car due to the negligence of Ms. Fox and her son Ferret. Mrs. Crow could hold Ms. Fox liable for her minor son's tortious behavior by allowing the car to be taken by him because she had known of his past misconduct while driving and still allowed him to use the vehicle thus, negligently causing the death of Mr. Crow. In conclusion, Mrs. Crow can likely bring the claim of wrongful death on behalf of herself and Mr. Crow's estate. Mrs. Crow, has lost her companion and Mr. Crow has lost his life due to the negligence of Ms. Fox and her son Ferret because of his failure to act as a reasonable person of age under similar circumstances.