Court Room Observation Paper

Courtroom Observation, Liberty University

Darlene E.B Hines Professor Hudson BUSI 301 Fall September 22, 2013 Courtroom Observation: 2008 1L Moot Court Tournament at the Liberty University School of Law, White V. Gibbs CA# -8776-CV285. This case is between the (plaintiff) Mrs. White and the (defendants) Patrick Gibbs and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C. as O’Malley’s Tavern. A Motion of Summary Judgment on behalf of O’Malley’s Tavern in the US District Court of Northern District of Indiana. Is being argued/presented. Briefly; Mrs. White is suing the defendant Patrick Gibbs of O’Malley’s Tavern where as the bartender served Mr. Hard with alcoholic beverages which lead to his intoxication, thus getting into his vehicle, driving erratic chasing both Mrs. White and her husband (Bruno), striking their vehicle in the side, causing physical injuries to Mrs. White and killing her husband Mr. White. The defendants are filing a Motion of Summary Judgment to resolve the lawsuit in their favor, whereas the plaintiff does not want the Motion of Summary Judgment granted and the lawsuit to go to trial with jury to recover damages from the defendants. The lawyers for the defendants are: Benjamin Walton and Jordon Van Meter. As the Motion of Summary Judgment is being heard/presented by the dependents their attorneys will go first. 1. Attorney Benjamin Walton is arguing there is no evidence of “Actual Knowledge of Visible Intoxicfication” and that the court should grant this motion. The bartender (Mr. John Daniels) of O’Malley’s though charged 13 drinks to Mr. Hard’s account and yes did see Mr. Hard drink 11 of the beverages in a short period of time but, at no time' during the service did the bartender have “Actual Knowledge of Visible Intoxification” of Mr. Hard's under the Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5. Even though he tried to hit Mr. White on their leaving the establishment, lost his balance and fell. Mr. Hard was able to get up by himself with no assistance to his car was required. This was addressed due to the question of the Ashlock Vs Norris case where assistance was required to get to her car, but again. Mr. Hard was able to get up by himself with no assistance to his car was required.. 2. Attorney Jordan Van Meter is arguing that there was no “proximate causation evidence” under the same Dram Shop act. The plaintiff is a victim of a crime not proximate cause based on intoxication of the injury. The facts presented were based on previous pre-existing criminal acts of Mr. Hard to cause harm to Mr. White. This is based on his break-up of his fiancée and her marriage to Mr. White. Where as he started to drink in excessive, receiving OWI’s , his statement of “she is to be my wife” the position of his car and his willful wanted malicious criminal act as in: Fast Eddie’s Vs Hall, it is superseding cause to proximate cause. Showing intent showing harm to Mr. White as in fact the striking of Mr. Hard’s vehicle into the side of the Whites vehicle in a direct action of a criminal act as proved by Mr. Hard’s previous preexisting behaviors. The lawyers for the plaintiff are: Jackson Welch and Amada Babot 1. Attorney Jackson Welch argues that just because Mr. Daniel (bartender/server) states he never observed that Mr. Hard as intoxicated does not preclude the lawsuit from going to trial. In Richter Vs Kirk Trucking, when summary judgment is based on credibility of witnesses, weight of testimony or state of mind of a patron, that it not appropriates the summary of judgment is granted. Factors from Ashlock Vs Norris, which allow the court to determine if whether a server of alcohol had actual visual Intoxification when they served the patron. The four factors are: How much alcohol being served, time service in, condition of patron before leaving and condition of patron when leaving. Mr. Hard purchased 13 beverages in the evening within a 2 hour 30 minute period. Prior to the Whites arrival Mr. Hard stated he had at lest 5 beers. Then in about a half hour period the bartender served Mr. Hard 5 shots of whiskey and one beer. This came to about 6 alcoholic beverages in within that sort timeframe. This is a total of 11 known alcoholic beverages served and consumed in such a shot period of time that it would be indicative to have observed signs of Intoxification.. Also the factor that his blood alcohol level of twice the legal limit would determine that the patron was served to Intoxification. In Jackson V Gore it is established that they can prove Actual Visual Knowledge of Intoxification.. The four factors of the server continued to serve the alcohol (13 in all charged) in a short period of time, collected the money , behavior of patron before service and leaving and behavior of patron upon leaving would establish an Actual Visual Knowledge of Intoxication. Plaintiff asks to deny the Motion of summary Judgment. 2. Attorney Babot is arguing the summary judgment to defendant of proximate cause should not to be granted for the following 3 reasons: . (1) It is determined that a jury could award damages to the plaintiff, thus summary of law this precludes judgment. (2) Injuries to the plaintiff and death of her husband were the foreseeable consequences of service to a visibly intoxicated person. (3) Criminal act can be the intervening act that does not break the can of causation because the act is easily foreseeable, There are differences in truths offered by both parties. The defendants state this was a criminal act which breaks the chain of causation. Plaintiff states this was not a criminal act in that the patron was served beyond his Intoxification and a foreseeable event would occur of harm to himself or someone else. The plaintiff stated they were being chased but not to go from intent to hurt to intent to murder. Mr., Hard did not have control of his vehicle due to his Intoxification, there was no intent to ram his vehicle to collide with them, Yes there was animosity between the parties but it is not intent of murder., but to continue his conversation and that is why he got into his vehicle to complete it. This is not enough to cutoff the bars liability. The Bartolini cases states that the bars negligent act even if followed by intentional harmful act by the intoxicated patron is still the proximate cause of an injury if the injury is a natural or probable consequence which in light of the circumstance should have been foreseeable. Basically served to Intoxification and patron does an intentional act that the server/bar would have foreseen it.. The plaintiff ask this court to not allow that the motion summary of judgment to go forward and not grant it as, Mr. Hard has the reputation of driving while drunk ,would cause a car accident when served beyond Intoxification. Before even watching the videos I needed to really get a feel for what Motion of Summary Judgment was. Wikipedia definition, law.com helped to give me the insight as to what a motion of summary granted is usually in favor of the defendant instead of going before a jury trail. Lots of paperwork on both sides. And some states have specific guidelines that have to be adhered to. Then once I grasped this I have been able to understand the courtroom observation, many times, Answering the questions for this case as follows: 1. Did I agree with the defendants (Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern) or the plaintiff (Mrs. White)? Why? (a.) As a professional mixologist/bartender and once working in the service arena, I agree with Mrs. White in not allowing this motion to go forward. My reason is that every bartender knows what is served and when a patron has had too much to drink. 13 drinks on the computer billing, sorry, this patron should have been cut off very early. Also I do feel that these patrons were well known at this particular establishment and the bartender would know that Mr. Hard would be very agitated when he saw his ex-fiancée with her new husband. 2. How does the biblical worldview bear on the answer to the question(s) before the court? (a) I feel the view is that we handle our own differences as Christians. But if you have followed the biblical way of resolving an issue and it cannot be resolved that way then it may have to be resolved in a court of law. Matthew 18: 15-17, If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established .Now if it has to be taken into the laws hands make sure it is done after much deliberation (prayer) for wisdom. James 1:5, 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 3. According to the biblical worldview, do you think this is a good method for resolving disputes? Why or why not? If not, what method would you propose in its place and why? (a) I agree this is a good method of resolving disputes. After all God gave us the capability to think and use the knowledge to manage/resolves disputes within our society throughout time. Our society and court system was built with Gods foundation that he has sent down to us, He allows us to use what is called “Man’s Laws” know that our beliefs still engaged in “Gods Law,” Since creation this was developed as a way to resolve disputes and we as Christians need to follow it and also God’s direction to us. I have one question who won the Moot 1l trail in 2008, video ended b before 2nd runner up and winner was named. Reference: Gariup Construction Company Vs Foster CA# 75S03-8803-CV-288, http://www.leagle.com/decision/19881743519NE2d1224_11688 Ashlock Vs Norris #4-184 A 2. http://www.leagle.com/decision/19851642475NE2d1167_11600 Fast Eddie’s Vs Hall CA#: 84A01-9701-Cv-40. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1259146.html Richter Vs Kirk CA# 76A05-9204-CV-103. .http://www.leagle.com/decision/1992822599NE2d223_1818 Paragon Family Restaurant Vs Bartolini. CA # 45S03-0211-CV-608. http://www.leagle.com/decision/20031847799NE2d1048_11823 Summary Judgment Wikipedia . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment Law.com. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2063 . . .