|July 2014 #6 Model A||When the defendant's conduct falls below the relevant standard of care, the defendant has breached his duty.|
|July 2011 #1 Model A||Breach determines whether the defendant met the standard of care, as established above.|
|February 2011 #4 Model B||A duty is considered breached when the defendant's conduct falls below the standard of care.|
The analysis for breach is usually brief. Once the applicable standard has been determined, it would be apparent whether or not a breach has occurred. Make a statement to that effect and move on.
|February 2011 #4 Model A||Paula must show that Gayle breached a duty owed to her by acting below the standard of care. Paula will argue that Gayle breached a duty to her by parking far away from the curb, and suddenly, without looking, swinging her car to the curb. This is wrongful because a reasonably prudent driver always looks both ways before they move their car on the street, to look for other vehicles. Moreover, Gayle knew Paula was in the vicinity since Frances told Gayle that a police officer was around and suggested she move her car. Thus, this element is met.|
|February 2011 #4 Model B||
A duty is considered breached when the defendant's conduct falls below the standard of care.
Here, Gayle swung her car towards the curb "suddenly" and "without looking," conduct which clearly falls below the standard of care. Automobiles are inherently dangerous and heavy, and proper vision and care are required. Moreover, since Frances caught sight of the patrol vehicle and told Frances, "Quick, move your car to the curb," it likely put Gayle on notice that someone was coming, making her sudden and quick movement of the car without looking that much more unreasonable.
Paula will probably have no problem proving this element.
Another theory of breach would be that Gayle breached when she "carelessly" parked too far away from the curb, as a reasonable person would have parked next to the curb.
|July 2011 #1 Model A||
Breach determines whether the defendant met the standard of care, as established above. The standard of care in this case is the care of a reasonable handgun owner.
P will claim that H breached this duty because he kept a handgun on his dresser by his bed, and a reasonable handgun owner would be aware of the risks of doing that and put it somewhere more secure. He would also comply with the statute. H may claim that it was reasonable to keep it there because it was for self-defense, but P will claim he could have kept it under the bed or at least with some sort of a safety lock on it so that someone who came in and stole it would not be able to use it. Additionally, she will claim he should have put it away while he was “out,” so that it could not be stolen. This may depend on whether B had a home alarm system.
The court will likely agree there was a breach
Please note: The model answers often contain errors of law, spelling and grammar. We provide them as starting points to craft your own responses.
Model answer materials The State Bar of California, used with permission. All other materials BarProse LLC