Build a Torts Exam Analysis Toolkit

Create a Word-based tort law revision toolkit with IRAC templates.

Introduction

30 Second Summary

When exam season arrives, the difference between scrambling through notes and writing confident answers often comes down to preparation. A structured toolkit that tells you exactly what to prove, which cases to cite, and how to structure your essay turns a stressful torts exam into a methodical exercise.

In this project, you will build a Torts Exam Analysis Toolkit in Microsoft Word that serves as both a revision resource and an exam technique trainer. You will create a tort classification flowchart, elements reference tables with case authorities, and a reusable IRAC essay template.

What You'll Build

A structured Word document containing a tort classification decision tree, reference tables for all three major tort categories, and a complete IRAC essay framework tested against a negligence fact pattern.

By the end of this project, you'll have:

  • A one-page tort classification decision tree that routes any fact pattern to the correct tort category using Word SmartArt.
  • Comprehensive elements reference tables for negligence, intentional torts, and strict liability with key Commonwealth and Kenyan case authorities.
  • A reusable IRAC essay template with time-allocation guidance, transition phrases, and a completed sample analysis of a road traffic negligence scenario.
  • Secret Mission: Tackle a multi-issue fact pattern blending negligence and an intentional tort, requiring two separate IRAC analyses.

Are there any prerequisites?

You only need Microsoft Word installed on your computer. No prior legal writing training is required. The project teaches you the IRAC framework and guides you through each element step by step.

Before We Start

Before We Start...

Set Up Your Document Structure

Every exam toolkit starts with a solid foundation. Before you can build flowcharts, reference tables, or essay templates, you need a well-organised document that makes each section easy to find under time pressure.

In this step, you will create a new Microsoft Word document, configure its page layout, and set up the section headings that will hold all of your revision content.

In this step, get ready to:
  • Create and save a new Word document with the correct page settings.
  • Add a title and four section headings.
  • Add a cover note and insert a page break so Section 1 starts on a fresh page.
Create the Word document

You need a blank document saved in a location you can easily return to throughout this project.

  • Press the Windows key to open your search bar.
  • Type Word and press Enter to open Microsoft Word.
  • Click Blank document to create a new file.
  • Press Ctrl+S to save.
  • Choose a folder you can easily find (such as your Desktop or Documents folder).
  • Name the file Torts Exam Toolkit and click Save.

Now set up the page layout so your document matches standard formatting.

  • Click the Layout tab in the ribbon at the top.
  • Click Size and select A4.
  • Click Margins and select Custom Margins.
  • Set the Top, Bottom, Left, and Right margins each to 2.54 cm.
  • Click OK.

Margins showing inches instead of centimetres?

If Word shows inches, change the unit by going to File > Options > Advanced.

Scroll down to the Display section and change Show measurements in units of to Centimeters. Click OK, then set your margins again.

Finally, set the default font for your body text.

  • Click the Home tab.
  • In the Font group, select Calibri from the font dropdown.
  • Set the font size to 11.

Your document is now saved and formatted. You should see Torts Exam Toolkit.docx in the title bar at the top of the Word window.

Don't see .docx in the title bar?

If the title bar just shows "Torts Exam Toolkit" without the extension, that is normal. Windows hides file extensions by default.

As long as you saved the file and can see the name in the title bar, you are on track. Help me confirm my file saved correctly.

Create the section headings

Heading styles let you organise your document into clearly separated sections. They also appear in the navigation pane, making it easy to jump between sections during revision.

  • Click at the very top of your document (the first line).
  • Type TORTS EXAM ANALYSIS TOOLKIT and press Enter.
  • Select the text you just typed.
  • In the Home tab, click Heading 1 in the Styles group.
  • With the title still selected, click the Center alignment button in the Paragraph group (or press Ctrl+E).

Now add the four section headings below the title.

  • Place your cursor on the blank line below the title.
  • Type Section 1: Tort Classification Flowchart and press Enter.
  • Type Section 2: Elements and Cases Reference and press Enter.
  • Type Section 3: IRAC Essay Template and press Enter.
  • Type Section 4: Practice Analysis and press Enter.
  • Select all four section lines (click at the start of Section 1, hold Shift, and click at the end of Section 4).
  • In the Home tab, click Heading 2 in the Styles group.

You should now see a large centred title at the top and four smaller headings listed below it. Each heading appears in a larger, bolder font than normal body text.

What are heading styles?

Heading styles (Heading 1, Heading 2, etc.) are built-in formatting presets in Word. They do more than just change the font size.

Word uses them to build a document outline. You can open the Navigation Pane (View tab > Navigation Pane checkbox) to see all your headings listed as clickable links.

Add a cover page note

A short note at the top of your document tells you (and anyone else reading it) exactly what this toolkit covers. A page break after the note keeps your cover page clean and starts Section 1 on its own page.

  • Click at the end of the title line (after "TOOLKIT") and press Enter to create a new line between the title and Section 1.
  • Type the following note on this new line:

Prepared for KSL Torts Examination Revision. Covers intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability under Kenyan/Commonwealth common law.

  • Select the note text you just typed.
  • Press Ctrl+I to apply italic formatting.
  • Make sure the style is set to Normal (not Heading 1 or Heading 2) in the Styles group.
  • Place your cursor at the end of the italic note.
  • Press Ctrl+Enter to insert a page break.

What does Ctrl+Enter do?

This keyboard shortcut inserts a manual page break. Everything after the break moves to the top of a new page, regardless of how much space remains on the current page.

  • Move Section 1 (and the three headings below it) so they sit after the page break. Select all four section headings, cut them (Ctrl+X), click at the top of page 2, and paste (Ctrl+V).
  • Press Ctrl+S to save your document.

Scroll through your document. Page 1 should show the centred title and the italic note. Page 2 onwards should show your four section headings.

Section headings still on page 1?

Make sure your cursor was at the end of the italic note (not after a section heading) when you pressed Ctrl+Enter. The page break must sit between the note and the first section heading.

If the headings ended up in the wrong place, undo with Ctrl+Z and try again. Help me fix my page break placement.

✔️ Awesome, I've got everything!

Great. Double check you have saved your file by pressing Ctrl+S.

ⓧ I'd like to double check the full document

Your document should match this structure:

  • Page 1:
  • Page 2 onwards:
  • Page layout: A4 paper, 2.54 cm margins all around, Calibri 11pt body font.

Your document skeleton is in place. Next up, you will build a visual decision tree that classifies any tort into the right category at a glance.

Build the Tort Classification Flowchart

Your document structure is in place. Now it is time to build the first tool in your toolkit: a visual decision tree that routes any fact pattern to the correct tort category.

When you face an exam fact pattern, the first challenge is classification. Is this negligence, an intentional tort, or strict liability? Getting this wrong means you apply the wrong elements and cite the wrong cases. A flowchart eliminates that guesswork by giving you a repeatable decision path.

In this step, get ready to:
  • Create a SmartArt decision tree with three classification branches.
  • Add sub-branches listing common torts under each category.
  • Format the flowchart to fit a single landscape page with usage instructions.
Create the decision tree using SmartArt

Microsoft Word includes SmartArt, a built-in tool for creating diagrams and organisational charts. You will use a Hierarchy layout to build a top-down decision tree.

  • Place your cursor directly below the Section 1: Tort Classification Flowchart heading in your document.
  • Click the Insert tab in the ribbon at the top of the screen.
  • Click SmartArt in the Illustrations group.
  • In the dialog that appears, select Hierarchy from the left panel.
  • Choose the first option labelled Hierarchy (the basic top-down tree), then click OK.

A SmartArt graphic appears in your document with placeholder text boxes. You will now replace the placeholder content with your decision tree structure.

  • Click on the top-level box and type: Was there a civil wrong causing injury/harm?
  • You need three second-level boxes. If the SmartArt only shows one or two, right-click the top node, select Add Shape, then Add Shape Below until you have three branches.
  • Click the first second-level box and type: Did D intend the act or know harm was substantially certain?
  • Click the second second-level box and type: Did D fail to meet the standard of a reasonable person?
  • Click the third second-level box and type: Does the activity/product impose liability regardless of fault?

Now add the answer nodes below each question. Each question leads to a YES outcome that identifies the tort category.

  • Right-click the first question box, select Add Shape > Add Shape Below.
  • Type INTENTIONAL TORT in the new box.
  • Right-click the second question box, select Add Shape > Add Shape Below.
  • Type NEGLIGENCE in the new box.
  • Right-click the third question box, select Add Shape > Add Shape Below.
  • Type STRICT LIABILITY in the new box.

What is this decision tree doing?

The tree mirrors how a lawyer classifies a tort claim. You start with the broadest question (was there a civil wrong?) and then ask progressively narrower questions about the defendant's mental state and the nature of the liability.

The first YES answer you hit determines your primary category. In an exam, this tells you which set of elements to prove and which cases to cite.

Add sub-branches for common torts

Each tort category contains several specific torts you may encounter in an exam. Adding these as sub-nodes means your flowchart does not just classify. It also reminds you which specific claims to consider.

  • Right-click the INTENTIONAL TORT box, select Add Shape > Add Shape Below.
  • Type Battery in this new sub-node.
  • Repeat the process to add six more sub-nodes under INTENTIONAL TORT with these labels: Assault, False Imprisonment, Trespass (land/chattels), Conversion, Defamation, and IIED.
  • Right-click the NEGLIGENCE box and add four sub-nodes below it.
  • Label them: General negligence, Professional negligence (medical malpractice), Occupiers' liability, and Vicarious liability.
  • Right-click the STRICT LIABILITY box and add three sub-nodes below it.
  • Label them: Product liability, Ultra-hazardous activities, and Rylands v Fletcher liability.

What is IIED?

IIED stands for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. It covers extreme and outrageous conduct that deliberately causes severe emotional harm. It is a distinct intentional tort from assault or battery because no physical contact is required.

What is Rylands v Fletcher liability?

The rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868] imposes strict liability when a person brings something onto their land that is likely to do mischief if it escapes. If it does escape and causes damage, the occupier is liable regardless of fault.

Running out of space in the SmartArt?

If the text is too small to read or boxes overlap, do not worry. The next substep covers resizing and changing the page to landscape orientation, which gives you much more room.

You can also try using the SmartArt Text Pane (click the small arrow on the left edge of the SmartArt border) to add and edit nodes more easily.

help me fix my SmartArt layout in Word

Format and label the flowchart

Your decision tree now has the right content, but it needs to fit comfortably on a single page. Switching to landscape orientation gives the wide, shallow tree the horizontal space it needs.

  • Click anywhere on the page that contains your SmartArt (the Section 1 page).
  • Click the Layout tab in the ribbon.
  • Click Orientation and select Landscape.

Apply landscape to one page only

If you want only the flowchart page in landscape while keeping the rest in portrait, insert section breaks (Layout > Breaks > Next Page) before and after the flowchart page. Then set orientation to Landscape with your cursor on that page only.

  • Click on the SmartArt graphic to select it.
  • Drag the corner handles to resize the SmartArt so it fills most of the page while leaving room for a note below it.
  • Confirm that all text in the boxes is readable. If any text is cut off, make the SmartArt slightly larger or reduce the font size within the shape by right-clicking a box, selecting Format Shape, and adjusting the text size.

Now add a key note below the flowchart so you remember how to use it during revision.

  • Click below the SmartArt graphic to place your cursor in the empty space.
  • Click the Insert tab, then click Text Box in the Text group.
  • Select Simple Text Box (or draw a text box by clicking Draw Text Box and dragging below the SmartArt).
  • Delete any placeholder text inside the box and type the following note:

Start at the top. Ask each question in order. The first YES determines your primary category. A single fact pattern may trigger multiple categories, requiring separate IRAC analyses for each.

  • Press Ctrl+S to save your document.

Why does the note mention multiple categories?

Exam fact patterns are rarely clean. A single scenario might involve both negligence (a careless act) and an intentional tort (a deliberate act afterwards). Your flowchart reminds you to run the questions for each potential claim separately, then write a full IRAC analysis for each one.

Text box covering the SmartArt?

If the text box overlaps your flowchart, click the border of the text box and drag it below the SmartArt. You can also right-click the text box, select Wrap Text > Top and Bottom to prevent overlap.

help me position my text box below my SmartArt in Word

Your flowchart page should now show the full decision tree on a single landscape page, with all three branches and their sub-nodes visible. The key note sits below the diagram.

Your classification tool is complete. Next up, you will build reference tables that give you the elements, definitions, and case authorities you need to write the Rule section of any IRAC answer.

Create the Elements and Cases Reference Tables

Your flowchart gives you a fast way to classify any fact pattern into the correct tort category. The next question is: once you know the category, what exactly do you need to prove?

In this step, you'll build three reference tables that capture the elements, definitions, key cases, and defenses for each tort category. These tables become your instant-access "Rule" section when writing IRAC answers under exam pressure.

In this step, get ready to:
  • Build a negligence elements table with definitions, cases, and what to prove for each element.
  • Build an intentional torts table with elements, key cases, and available defenses.
  • Build a strict liability summary table with the governing rules, cases, and defenses.
Build the negligence elements table

Negligence is the most frequently tested tort in common law exams. Your table needs to capture each element a claimant must prove, along with the landmark case that established it.

  • Place your cursor under the Section 2: Elements and Cases Reference heading in your document.
  • Click Insert in the ribbon at the top.
  • Click Table and select a 4-column by 6-row grid (4 columns, 1 header row + 5 data rows).
  • Type the column headers in the first row: Element, Definition, Key Case, What to Prove.
  • Fill in the five data rows using the content below:
Row 1:
  Element: Duty of Care
  Definition: A legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to persons closely affected by one's acts
  Key Case: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  What to Prove: Proximity and foreseeability; the "neighbour principle"

Row 2:
  Element: Breach of Duty
  Definition: Falling below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances
  Key Case: Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856]
  What to Prove: D's conduct measured against the reasonable person standard; consider probability of harm, severity, cost of precautions

Row 3:
  Element: Causation (Factual)
  Definition: The breach must have actually caused the harm: "but for" the breach, the harm would not have occurred
  Key Case: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969]
  What to Prove: Apply the "but-for" test; if multiple causes, consider substantial factor or material contribution

Row 4:
  Element: Causation (Legal/Remoteness)
  Definition: The type of harm must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach
  Key Case: The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961]
  What to Prove: The harm must be of a kind that was foreseeable, even if its exact extent was not

Row 5:
  Element: Damage
  Definition: The claimant must have suffered actual, recognised loss
  Key Case: -
  What to Prove: Physical injury, property damage, or recognised psychiatric harm; pure economic loss has limited recovery

Why these five elements?

Kenyan courts follow the same negligence framework established in English common law. In Fred Ben Okoth v Equator Bottlers [2015] eKLR, the Kenyan Court of Appeal explicitly stated that a claimant must prove the defendant had a legal duty of care, that the duty was breached, and that the breach caused the loss.

Splitting causation into factual (but-for) and legal (remoteness) gives you two distinct elements to analyse separately in your IRAC application section. Examiners reward this separation because it shows precise legal reasoning.

  • Save your document by pressing Ctrl+S.
  • You should see a 6-row table (header + 5 data rows) with all four columns filled. Each Key Case cell should have a case name and year.

Table columns too narrow to read?

If your text is wrapping awkwardly or cells are too cramped, right-click the table and select AutoFit then AutoFit to Window. This spreads the columns evenly across the page width. You can also drag individual column borders to give the Definition column more space.

Help me resize my Word table so all the content is readable.

Build the intentional torts elements table

Intentional torts require proof of a deliberate act rather than mere carelessness. Each tort has its own specific elements, so this table focuses on what distinguishes one intentional tort from another.

  • Place your cursor below the negligence table you just created.
  • Click Insert then Table and select a 4-column by 5-row grid (1 header row + 4 data rows).
  • Type the column headers: Tort, Elements, Key Case, Available Defenses.
  • Fill in the four data rows using the content below:
Row 1:
  Tort: Battery
  Elements: Intentional harmful/offensive contact with another's person
  Key Case: Cole v Turner [1704]; in Kenya: applied in assault/battery criminal and civil cases
  Available Defenses: Consent, self-defence, necessity, statutory authority

Row 2:
  Tort: Assault
  Elements: Intentional act creating reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact
  Key Case: R v Ireland [1998] (words can constitute assault)
  Available Defenses: Consent, self-defence, provocation (mitigation only)

Row 3:
  Tort: False Imprisonment
  Elements: Intentional total restraint of a person's freedom of movement without lawful authority
  Key Case: Bird v Jones [1845]; Collins v Wilcock [1984]
  Available Defenses: Lawful authority, consent, reasonable condition

Row 4:
  Tort: Trespass to Land
  Elements: Intentional direct entry onto land in possession of another without permission
  Key Case: Entick v Carrington [1765]
  Available Defenses: License, necessity, statutory authority, jus tertii

What does this table help you do?

Each row gives you everything you need for the "Rule" section of an IRAC answer on that tort. The Elements column tells you what to prove. The Key Case column gives you the authority to cite. The Defenses column reminds you to address the defendant's potential arguments.

Notice that provocation is listed as "mitigation only" for assault. This means it does not eliminate liability. It only reduces the damages awarded. That distinction is worth marks in an exam.

  • Save your document by pressing Ctrl+S.
  • You should now see two tables under Section 2. The second table has 4 rows of intentional torts, each with a case citation in the Key Case column.

Second table appearing on a new page unexpectedly?

Word sometimes inserts a page break before a table if there is not enough space. Place your cursor just before the table, go to Home then click the paragraph marks button (¶) to show formatting symbols. Delete any extra paragraph marks or page breaks between the two tables.

Help me fix unwanted page breaks between my tables.

Build the strict liability summary table

Strict liability differs from negligence because the claimant does not need to prove fault. The defendant is liable simply because the harmful event occurred. Only two categories commonly appear in Kenyan/Commonwealth exams.

  • Place your cursor below the intentional torts table.
  • Click Insert then Table and select a 4-column by 3-row grid (1 header row + 2 data rows).
  • Type the column headers: Category, Rule, Key Case, Defenses.
  • Fill in the two data rows using the content below:
Row 1:
  Category: Escape of dangerous things
  Rule: A person who brings onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for damage caused by its escape
  Key Case: Rylands v Fletcher [1868]
  Defenses: Act of God, act of stranger, claimant's own fault, statutory authority, common benefit

Row 2:
  Category: Product Liability
  Rule: A manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer where the product reaches them without opportunity for intermediate inspection
  Key Case: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]; in Kenya: Fred Ben Okoth v Equator Bottlers [2015] eKLR
  Defenses: Product misuse, contributory negligence, no defect proven

Why does Donoghue v Stevenson appear in two tables?

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] established both the general neighbour principle (used in negligence) and the specific rule about manufacturer liability to ultimate consumers (used in product liability). It appears in your negligence table for the broad duty of care principle and in your strict liability table for the narrower product liability rule.

The Kenyan case Fred Ben Okoth v Equator Bottlers [2015] eKLR confirms that Kenyan courts directly apply this authority. Citing both the English source and the Kenyan application strengthens your Rule section.

  • Save your document by pressing Ctrl+S.
  • Scroll through Section 2. You should see three distinct tables stacked under the heading, covering negligence (5 rows), intentional torts (4 rows), and strict liability (2 rows).

Table text looking inconsistent?

If some cells use different fonts or sizes, select all three tables (click inside the first table, hold Shift and click the last cell of the third table), then set the font to Calibri 11pt from the Home ribbon. This ensures all your reference content is visually uniform.

Help me format my Word tables consistently.

✔️ Awesome, I've got everything!

Double check you've saved your file. All three tables should be complete and readable under Section 2.

ⓧ I'd like to double check the full content

Here is the complete reference content for all three tables in Section 2. Compare against your document:

SECTION 2: ELEMENTS AND CASES REFERENCE

=== TABLE 1: NEGLIGENCE ===
Columns: Element | Definition | Key Case | What to Prove

Row 1:
  Element: Duty of Care
  Definition: A legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to persons closely affected by one's acts
  Key Case: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  What to Prove: Proximity and foreseeability; the "neighbour principle"

Row 2:
  Element: Breach of Duty
  Definition: Falling below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances
  Key Case: Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856]
  What to Prove: D's conduct measured against the reasonable person standard; consider probability of harm, severity, cost of precautions

Row 3:
  Element: Causation (Factual)
  Definition: The breach must have actually caused the harm: "but for" the breach, the harm would not have occurred
  Key Case: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969]
  What to Prove: Apply the "but-for" test; if multiple causes, consider substantial factor or material contribution

Row 4:
  Element: Causation (Legal/Remoteness)
  Definition: The type of harm must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach
  Key Case: The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961]
  What to Prove: The harm must be of a kind that was foreseeable, even if its exact extent was not

Row 5:
  Element: Damage
  Definition: The claimant must have suffered actual, recognised loss
  Key Case: -
  What to Prove: Physical injury, property damage, or recognised psychiatric harm; pure economic loss has limited recovery

=== TABLE 2: INTENTIONAL TORTS ===
Columns: Tort | Elements | Key Case | Available Defenses

Row 1:
  Tort: Battery
  Elements: Intentional harmful/offensive contact with another's person
  Key Case: Cole v Turner [1704]; in Kenya: applied in assault/battery criminal and civil cases
  Available Defenses: Consent, self-defence, necessity, statutory authority

Row 2:
  Tort: Assault
  Elements: Intentional act creating reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact
  Key Case: R v Ireland [1998] (words can constitute assault)
  Available Defenses: Consent, self-defence, provocation (mitigation only)

Row 3:
  Tort: False Imprisonment
  Elements: Intentional total restraint of a person's freedom of movement without lawful authority
  Key Case: Bird v Jones [1845]; Collins v Wilcock [1984]
  Available Defenses: Lawful authority, consent, reasonable condition

Row 4:
  Tort: Trespass to Land
  Elements: Intentional direct entry onto land in possession of another without permission
  Key Case: Entick v Carrington [1765]
  Available Defenses: License, necessity, statutory authority, jus tertii

=== TABLE 3: STRICT LIABILITY ===
Columns: Category | Rule | Key Case | Defenses

Row 1:
  Category: Escape of dangerous things
  Rule: A person who brings onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for damage caused by its escape
  Key Case: Rylands v Fletcher [1868]
  Defenses: Act of God, act of stranger, claimant's own fault, statutory authority, common benefit

Row 2:
  Category: Product Liability
  Rule: A manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer where the product reaches them without opportunity for intermediate inspection
  Key Case: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]; in Kenya: Fred Ben Okoth v Equator Bottlers [2015] eKLR
  Defenses: Product misuse, contributory negligence, no defect proven

You now have a complete quick-reference for the elements, authorities, and defenses across all three tort categories. Next, you'll build a reusable IRAC essay template that turns these elements into structured exam answers.

Build the IRAC Essay Template

Your reference tables now give you instant recall of elements and cases for any tort category.

Knowing the law is only half the battle in an exam. The other half is structuring your answer so the examiner can follow your reasoning under time pressure. In this step, you will build a reusable IRAC essay template with sentence starters, a time-allocation guide, and connecting phrases that keep your Application section flowing.

In this step, get ready to:
  • Write the four-part IRAC template with fill-in-the-blank placeholders.
  • Add an exam time-allocation guide in a bordered text box.
  • Add useful transition phrases for the Application section.
Write the template structure

IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Each section has a specific job and a specific proportion of your exam time. The template you are about to type gives you sentence starters so you never stare at a blank page during an exam.

  • Click under the Section 3: IRAC Essay Template heading in your document.
  • Type the following template exactly as shown, including the square-bracket placeholders:
ISSUE:
"The issue is whether [defendant] owes/owed [claimant] a [duty of care / committed battery / is strictly liable] in respect of [describe the harm or act in one sentence]."

RULE:
"[State the broad legal principle first]. In [Case Name] [Year], it was established that [ratio decidendi]. The elements required to establish [this tort] are: (i) [element 1], (ii) [element 2], (iii) [element 3], and (iv) [element 4]. [Add any relevant statutory provision if applicable]."

APPLICATION:
"Here, [connect each element to the facts using because]. Regarding [element 1], [fact from the scenario] satisfies/does not satisfy this element because [reasoning]. Turning to [element 2]... The counterargument is that [opposing position], however [rebuttal using case law or principle]."

CONCLUSION:
"Therefore, [claimant] is likely to succeed/fail in establishing [the tort] against [defendant] because [one-sentence summary of the decisive reasoning]."

What does each section do?

  • ISSUE frames the legal question the examiner wants you to answer. It should be one sentence.
  • RULE states the legal principle and cites authority. This is where your Section 2 reference tables pay off.
  • APPLICATION is where you earn the most marks. You connect each element to the specific facts and address counterarguments.
  • CONCLUSION gives a decisive answer. Never hedge with "it depends" in your conclusion.
  • Press Ctrl+S to save your document.
  • Scroll through Section 3. You should see four clearly labelled IRAC headings (ISSUE, RULE, APPLICATION, CONCLUSION) each followed by a sentence-starter paragraph in quotation marks.

Template looks cramped or hard to read?

Make sure you left a blank line between each IRAC section (ISSUE, RULE, APPLICATION, CONCLUSION). Each section label should be on its own line, with the quoted sentence starter on the line below it.

If the text runs together, place your cursor between sections and press Enter to add spacing.

Help me format my IRAC template so each section is visually distinct in Word.

Add the time-allocation guide

Many students spend too long on the Rule section and run out of time for Application. Application is where the marks are. A quick visual reminder of the ideal split keeps you on track during timed practice.

  • Place your cursor below the CONCLUSION sentence starter.
  • Go to Insert in the ribbon, then click Text Box.
  • Select Draw Text Box and draw a rectangle below your template.
  • Type the following time-allocation guide inside the text box:
EXAM TIME ALLOCATION:
- Issue: 10% of your time (1-2 sentences)
- Rule: 20% of your time (state elements + cite authority)
- Application: 60% of your time (longest section; connect EVERY element to facts)
- Conclusion: 10% of your time (1 sentence; be decisive, do not hedge)

Why does Application get 60%?

Stating the rule proves you know the law. Applying it to the facts proves you can think like a lawyer. Examiners award the highest marks to answers that walk through each element with specific facts from the scenario, not to answers that recite textbook definitions.

  • Add a border to the text box by right-clicking its edge, selecting Format Shape, and choosing a solid line under Line.
  • Press Ctrl+S to save.
  • You should see a bordered box below your IRAC template containing the four percentage breakdowns.

Text box not appearing where you want it?

Word text boxes can float over content. Right-click the text box border, select Wrap Text, then choose Top and Bottom. This keeps it inline with your document flow so it sits neatly below the template.

Help me position my text box so it stays below the IRAC template in Word.

Add common transition phrases

The Application section is where students freeze mid-sentence. Having a bank of transition phrases means you always have a way to move from one element to the next without losing your reader.

  • Click below the time-allocation text box.
  • Type the heading Useful Transition Phrases for Application and press Enter.
  • Type the following six phrases as a bulleted list:
- Applying the principle in [Case], to the facts at hand...
- Here, the defendant's conduct satisfies/fails to satisfy [element] because...
- This is analogous to / distinguishable from [Case] where...
- The counterargument is that... however...
- On a balance of probabilities, it is submitted that...
- Turning to the question of [next element]...

How do these phrases help in an exam?

Each phrase solves a specific problem. "Applying the principle in [Case]" connects your Rule to your facts. "The counterargument is that" shows the examiner you can think from both sides. "On a balance of probabilities" signals you are applying the civil standard of proof.

Memorise two or three of these before your exam. They act as mental bridges when your thinking stalls under pressure.

  • Press Ctrl+S to save your document.
  • Scroll through Section 3. You should see the IRAC template, the bordered time-allocation box, and the six transition phrases all on the same or consecutive pages.

Bullet points not formatting correctly?

If Word is not creating bullets automatically, select all six lines, then go to Home > Bullets in the Paragraph group to apply a bulleted list style.

Help me format a bulleted list in Word that is not auto-formatting.

✔️ Awesome, I've got everything!

Great. Double check you have saved your document before moving on.

ⓧ I'd like to double check the full content

Your Section 3 should contain all of the following, in this order:

ISSUE:
"The issue is whether [defendant] owes/owed [claimant] a [duty of care / committed battery / is strictly liable] in respect of [describe the harm or act in one sentence]."

RULE:
"[State the broad legal principle first]. In [Case Name] [Year], it was established that [ratio decidendi]. The elements required to establish [this tort] are: (i) [element 1], (ii) [element 2], (iii) [element 3], and (iv) [element 4]. [Add any relevant statutory provision if applicable]."

APPLICATION:
"Here, [connect each element to the facts using because]. Regarding [element 1], [fact from the scenario] satisfies/does not satisfy this element because [reasoning]. Turning to [element 2]... The counterargument is that [opposing position], however [rebuttal using case law or principle]."

CONCLUSION:
"Therefore, [claimant] is likely to succeed/fail in establishing [the tort] against [defendant] because [one-sentence summary of the decisive reasoning]."

---

[Bordered text box:]
EXAM TIME ALLOCATION:
- Issue: 10% of your time (1-2 sentences)
- Rule: 20% of your time (state elements + cite authority)
- Application: 60% of your time (longest section; connect EVERY element to facts)
- Conclusion: 10% of your time (1 sentence; be decisive, do not hedge)

---

Useful Transition Phrases for Application:
- Applying the principle in [Case], to the facts at hand...
- Here, the defendant's conduct satisfies/fails to satisfy [element] because...
- This is analogous to / distinguishable from [Case] where...
- The counterargument is that... however...
- On a balance of probabilities, it is submitted that...
- Turning to the question of [next element]...

Your toolkit now has classification logic, reference tables, and a structural template. Next up, you will put all three to work by analysing a real fact pattern from start to finish.

Apply the Toolkit to a Sample Fact Pattern

Your IRAC template is ready with sentence starters, time allocation, and transition phrases. Now it's time to put the entire toolkit to work on a realistic exam scenario.

In this step, you'll write a fact pattern based on a Kenyan road traffic accident, classify it using your flowchart, and then write two complete IRAC analyses using your template and reference tables.

In this step, get ready to:
  • Write a practice fact pattern and exam question.
  • Classify the fact pattern using your Section 1 flowchart.
  • Write two complete IRAC analyses covering negligence and vicarious liability.
Write a practice fact pattern

Road traffic accidents are the most common tort scenarios in Kenyan courts. This makes them highly relevant for your KSL exam preparation.

  • Place your cursor under the Section 4: Practice Analysis heading in your document.
  • Type the following fact pattern:
Mwangi was driving his matatu along Thika Road on a rainy afternoon. He was texting on his phone and failed to notice that the traffic lights had turned red. His vehicle entered the intersection and struck Akinyi, a pedestrian who was crossing lawfully on a green signal. Akinyi suffered a broken leg and was unable to work for three months. Mwangi's employer, FastTrack Sacco, owns the matatu and employs Mwangi as a driver.
  • Below the fact pattern, leave a blank line and type the exam question:
Question: Advise Akinyi on her potential claims in tort.

Why this fact pattern?

This scenario mirrors real Kenyan tort cases. Kenyan courts regularly handle road traffic negligence with vicarious liability against vehicle owners (Saccos). Cases like Mbeva v Kenya Malik Limited [2023] show this exact pattern.

The "Advise Akinyi" phrasing is the standard KSL exam format. It signals you need to identify all possible claims, not just one.

  • Save your document by pressing Ctrl+S.
  • You should see a paragraph of fact pattern text followed by the question line under Section 4.
Classify using your flowchart

Before jumping into a full IRAC, an exam answer should start by identifying which tort category applies. This is where your Section 1 flowchart pays off.

  • Below the question, leave a blank line and type the following classification paragraph:
Classification: Using the decision tree, the primary question is whether Mwangi failed to meet the standard of a reasonable person. Texting while driving in rain falls below the standard expected of a reasonable driver. This is a NEGLIGENCE claim. A secondary issue is whether FastTrack Sacco is vicariously liable for Mwangi's negligence committed in the course of employment.

What does this classification do?

You walked through the flowchart logic from Section 1. The top node asks whether there was a civil wrong causing harm. Then the second-level question "Did D fail to meet the standard of a reasonable person?" leads to NEGLIGENCE.

Identifying the secondary vicarious liability issue shows the examiner you can spot multiple claims in a single fact pattern. This is where marks are won or lost.

  • Save your document by pressing Ctrl+S.
  • You should now see the fact pattern, question, and classification paragraph stacked under Section 4.
Write the full IRAC analysis

Now you'll write two complete IRAC blocks. The first covers the negligence claim against Mwangi. The second covers vicarious liability against FastTrack Sacco.

  • Below your classification paragraph, leave a blank line and type the heading and first IRAC analysis:
IRAC 1: Negligence claim against Mwangi

ISSUE:
The issue is whether Mwangi owed Akinyi a duty of care and breached it, causing her injuries.

RULE:
A person owes a duty of care to those who are so closely and directly affected by their act that they ought reasonably to have them in contemplation. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, it was established that the "neighbour principle" imposes a duty on persons to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm others. The standard of care is that of a reasonable person in the circumstances (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856]). Factual causation requires that "but for" the defendant's breach, the harm would not have occurred (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969]). The type of harm must also be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach (The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961]).

The elements required to establish negligence are: (i) duty of care, (ii) breach of duty, (iii) causation, and (iv) damage that is not too remote.

APPLICATION:
Here, Mwangi as a road user owes a duty of care to other road users and pedestrians such as Akinyi. Pedestrians lawfully crossing at a green signal are foreseeable plaintiffs within the neighbour principle.

Regarding breach of duty, Mwangi was texting on his phone while driving in rainy conditions. A reasonable driver would not text while driving, particularly in rain when stopping distances increase. His conduct falls below the standard of a reasonable person.

Turning to the question of causation, but for Mwangi running the red light, his vehicle would not have entered the intersection and Akinyi would not have been struck. The but-for test is satisfied.

On remoteness, a broken leg from being struck by a vehicle is a foreseeable type of harm from running a red light at an intersection. Applying the principle in The Wagon Mound (No.1), this type of physical injury is plainly foreseeable.

Regarding damage, Akinyi suffered a broken leg and was unable to work for three months. This constitutes recognised physical harm and consequential economic loss.

CONCLUSION:
Therefore, Akinyi is likely to succeed in establishing negligence against Mwangi because all four elements are satisfied on the facts: duty existed by the neighbour principle, breach is clear from texting while driving in rain, causation is established by the but-for test, and a broken leg is a foreseeable type of harm from a vehicle collision.

What does this IRAC demonstrate?

Notice how the Application section is the longest part. Each element from the Rule gets its own paragraph connecting the law to the specific facts. This follows your time-allocation guide: Application should take 60% of your writing time.

The transition phrases from Section 3 appear naturally throughout. "Turning to the question of..." and "Applying the principle in..." signal to the examiner that you are methodically working through each element.

  • Now type the second IRAC analysis below the first one, with a blank line separating them:
IRAC 2: Vicarious liability of FastTrack Sacco

ISSUE:
The issue is whether FastTrack Sacco is vicariously liable for Mwangi's negligence.

RULE:
An employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in the course of their employment. In Limpus v London General Omnibus Co [1862], it was established that an employer is liable where the employee commits the tort while carrying out authorised duties, even if the specific manner of performing those duties was unauthorised.

The elements required to establish vicarious liability are: (i) an employer-employee relationship exists, (ii) the employee committed a tort, and (iii) the tort was committed in the course of employment.

APPLICATION:
Here, FastTrack Sacco owns the matatu and employs Mwangi as a driver. This establishes the employer-employee relationship.

Regarding the second element, as established in IRAC 1 above, Mwangi committed the tort of negligence by texting while driving and striking Akinyi.

Turning to the question of course of employment, Mwangi was driving the employer's matatu during working hours on a route. The negligent act of texting while driving occurred while he was performing his authorised duty of driving the matatu. Although texting was not authorised by FastTrack Sacco, the negligent act occurred in the course of carrying out his employment duties.

CONCLUSION:
Therefore, FastTrack Sacco is jointly liable with Mwangi for Akinyi's damages because Mwangi committed negligence while performing his employment duties of driving the employer's matatu on its route.

Why is vicarious liability a separate IRAC?

Vicarious liability is a distinct legal claim with its own elements. Even though it depends on Mwangi's negligence being proven first, it requires separate analysis because the defendant is different (FastTrack Sacco, not Mwangi) and the legal test is different (course of employment, not reasonable person standard).

Practically, vicarious liability matters because employers usually have deeper pockets than individual employees. Advising Akinyi means identifying who can actually pay damages.

  • Save your document by pressing Ctrl+S.
  • Scroll through Section 4. You should see the fact pattern, question, classification paragraph, and two complete IRAC analyses filling approximately 2-3 pages.

Section 4 looking too cramped?

Make sure you have blank lines between each major section (between the fact pattern and the classification, between the classification and IRAC 1, and between IRAC 1 and IRAC 2). Each IRAC heading should be visually distinct from the body text above it.

If your text runs onto Section 1's landscape page, insert a page break before Section 4 by clicking Insert > Page Break.

Need more help? Why does my Section 4 formatting look off in Word?

✔️ Awesome, I've got everything!

Great. Double check that you've saved your file and that Section 4 has all five components: fact pattern, question, classification, IRAC 1 (negligence), and IRAC 2 (vicarious liability).

ⓧ I'd like to double check the full text

Here is the complete text that should appear under Section 4: Practice Analysis in your document:

Mwangi was driving his matatu along Thika Road on a rainy afternoon. He was texting on his phone and failed to notice that the traffic lights had turned red. His vehicle entered the intersection and struck Akinyi, a pedestrian who was crossing lawfully on a green signal. Akinyi suffered a broken leg and was unable to work for three months. Mwangi's employer, FastTrack Sacco, owns the matatu and employs Mwangi as a driver.

Question: Advise Akinyi on her potential claims in tort.

Classification: Using the decision tree, the primary question is whether Mwangi failed to meet the standard of a reasonable person. Texting while driving in rain falls below the standard expected of a reasonable driver. This is a NEGLIGENCE claim. A secondary issue is whether FastTrack Sacco is vicariously liable for Mwangi's negligence committed in the course of employment.

IRAC 1: Negligence claim against Mwangi

ISSUE:
The issue is whether Mwangi owed Akinyi a duty of care and breached it, causing her injuries.

RULE:
A person owes a duty of care to those who are so closely and directly affected by their act that they ought reasonably to have them in contemplation. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, it was established that the "neighbour principle" imposes a duty on persons to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm others. The standard of care is that of a reasonable person in the circumstances (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856]). Factual causation requires that "but for" the defendant's breach, the harm would not have occurred (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969]). The type of harm must also be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach (The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961]).

The elements required to establish negligence are: (i) duty of care, (ii) breach of duty, (iii) causation, and (iv) damage that is not too remote.

APPLICATION:
Here, Mwangi as a road user owes a duty of care to other road users and pedestrians such as Akinyi. Pedestrians lawfully crossing at a green signal are foreseeable plaintiffs within the neighbour principle.

Regarding breach of duty, Mwangi was texting on his phone while driving in rainy conditions. A reasonable driver would not text while driving, particularly in rain when stopping distances increase. His conduct falls below the standard of a reasonable person.

Turning to the question of causation, but for Mwangi running the red light, his vehicle would not have entered the intersection and Akinyi would not have been struck. The but-for test is satisfied.

On remoteness, a broken leg from being struck by a vehicle is a foreseeable type of harm from running a red light at an intersection. Applying the principle in The Wagon Mound (No.1), this type of physical injury is plainly foreseeable.

Regarding damage, Akinyi suffered a broken leg and was unable to work for three months. This constitutes recognised physical harm and consequential economic loss.

CONCLUSION:
Therefore, Akinyi is likely to succeed in establishing negligence against Mwangi because all four elements are satisfied on the facts: duty existed by the neighbour principle, breach is clear from texting while driving in rain, causation is established by the but-for test, and a broken leg is a foreseeable type of harm from a vehicle collision.

IRAC 2: Vicarious liability of FastTrack Sacco

ISSUE:
The issue is whether FastTrack Sacco is vicariously liable for Mwangi's negligence.

RULE:
An employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in the course of their employment. In Limpus v London General Omnibus Co [1862], it was established that an employer is liable where the employee commits the tort while carrying out authorised duties, even if the specific manner of performing those duties was unauthorised.

The elements required to establish vicarious liability are: (i) an employer-employee relationship exists, (ii) the employee committed a tort, and (iii) the tort was committed in the course of employment.

APPLICATION:
Here, FastTrack Sacco owns the matatu and employs Mwangi as a driver. This establishes the employer-employee relationship.

Regarding the second element, as established in IRAC 1 above, Mwangi committed the tort of negligence by texting while driving and striking Akinyi.

Turning to the question of course of employment, Mwangi was driving the employer's matatu during working hours on a route. The negligent act of texting while driving occurred while he was performing his authorised duty of driving the matatu. Although texting was not authorised by FastTrack Sacco, the negligent act occurred in the course of carrying out his employment duties.

CONCLUSION:
Therefore, FastTrack Sacco is jointly liable with Mwangi for Akinyi's damages because Mwangi committed negligence while performing his employment duties of driving the employer's matatu on its route.

Secret mission

Tackle a Multi-Issue Fact Pattern

Real exam questions rarely involve a single tort. This challenge asks you to write a fact pattern that blends negligence AND an intentional tort in one scenario, then run two separate IRAC analyses. This is the skill that separates a pass from a distinction.

Clean Up Your Resources

Clean Up Your Resources

This project runs entirely locally using Microsoft Word, so there are no ongoing costs or cloud resources to worry about.

Resources you used:

  • One Word document (Torts Exam Toolkit.docx) saved on your local machine.

Keep everything running

No action needed. Choose this if you plan to keep revising and adding new practice analyses before your exams.

  • Keep your Torts Exam Toolkit.docx in a folder you can easily find.
  • Update it throughout the semester as you learn new cases and encounter new fact patterns.
  • Add new IRAC practice analyses to Section 4 before each mock exam or revision session.

Pause - I'll come back to this later

Since this is just a local Word document, there is nothing to pause or shut down. Your file stays on your computer until you need it again.

  • Make sure Torts Exam Toolkit.docx is saved.
  • Close Microsoft Word.
  • When you are ready to return, open the file from wherever you saved it.

Delete - I don't want to use this again

Remove the project file from your computer entirely.

  • Close Torts Exam Toolkit.docx in Microsoft Word.
  • Navigate to the folder where you saved the file using File Explorer.
  • Right-click Torts Exam Toolkit.docx and select Delete.
  • Empty your Recycle Bin to permanently remove the file.

Nice Work!

Nice Work!

You just built a complete Torts Exam Analysis Toolkit in Microsoft Word. This document gives you instant access to classification logic, elements, case authorities, and essay structure for writing exam-quality IRAC answers under time pressure.

You've learned how to:

  • Built a tort classification decision tree that routes any fact pattern to the correct tort category using logical yes/no questions.
  • Created comprehensive elements-and-cases reference tables covering negligence, intentional torts, and strict liability with their key Commonwealth/Kenyan case authorities.
  • Wrote a complete exam-quality IRAC analysis of a negligence fact pattern, including a vicarious liability claim against an employer.
  • Secret Mission: Analyzed a multi-issue fact pattern requiring separate IRAC blocks for negligence and an intentional tort, demonstrating the ability to handle complex exam questions.

Ready to quiz yourself?