Often students seem to know the rules but have trouble writing their essays in a way that shows the instructor the extent of their knowledge.  I can't emphasize often enough the need to use IRAC: state the issue, then the rule that applies, analyze the facts in light of the rule, and briefly state a conclusion.  Below are some illustrations, based on the Spring 2000 exam:

    Karen's estate can recover for her pain and suffering, at least if this is not California.  Karen felt awful pain while she was being extricated from the wreck by the jaws of life.  In fact, the paramedics were afraid to move her because of the pain.  Although her suffering was not long (about half an hour), she clearly did suffer during that time and the jury should be allowed to value that suffering.

    An answer like the above is not bad--at least, not wrong.  The problem is that it suggests but does not show me that the writer knows the rules.  Much better is something like the following:

    In many jurisdictions, Karen's estate can recover for her pain and suffering, but only if she was conscious of some pain before her death.  Here, she surely must have been conscious of terrible pain while being extricated from the wreck by the jaws of life.  In fact, paramedics were afraid to move her because of the pain.   Although her suffering was relatively short, her estate will recover for the time that she was actually conscious of pain.  The outcome would be different in California, which does not allow damages in a survivorship action for pain, suffering, or disfigurement.

Another example:

       The estate may get pain and suffering if Karen actually suffered.  This requires that Karen have been conscious and suffering for at least 1/2 to 1 hour.

Again, I can't tell whether the person knows that the standard is consciousness of suffering prior to death.  Better:

    The estate can get damages for pain and suffering only if Karen was conscious of the pain.  Here...

A different example:

    Karen's parents may be able to recover for intangible loss of consortium.  They will argue that they loved her dearly, that they often went on vacation together, and that Karen would visit them regularly.  Donna will argue that Karen no longer lived at home and that, as a busy medical student, she did not have a lot of time to spend with her parents.  After finishing med school, Karen might have even less time.

   Here, I again am not completely sure if the writer knows the rules, and she never comes to a conclusion.  Note also that there is no real analysis.  It simply presents possible arguments but does not analyze the facts.  Remember that the A in IRAC stands for "analysis," not "argument."  Better:

    Karen's parents can recover for intangible loss of consortium if, because of her death, they were deprived of her love, companionship, and affection.  Although Karen did not have a lot of time to spend with her parents during med school, she visited her parents regularly and even went on vacations with them.  The parents clearly lost at least some future companionship and affection. They will recover for loss of intangible consortium.