Observation Paper - 1 Hour Writer

Courtroom Observation

Prof Dennis

Virginia Jones

BUSI301 Business Law

4 Oct 13

Courtroom Observation Paper

[I mixed up the following paragraphs, so do not attempt to reconstruct, BUT DO KEEP and use the section "red" - the Issue and Ruling, in this format, so you have the legal issue and ruling, with which to help you in your legal analysis.]

Liberty University Business Law Courtroom Observation

Facts

WWWW has sued Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern under the civil provisions of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5.” from O’Malley’s Tavern, Mr. Hard’s van struck the side of the White’s vehicle, killing Mr. White and caus On the night in question, the bartender, John Daniels was serving drinks to Edward Hard. Mr. Hard had several drinks, including two shots of liquor and five beers. Mr. Hard also argued with the Plaintiff, Mrs. White, with whom he had a prior romantic relationship. Mrs. White also accused Mr. Hard of striking her while they were both inside O’Malley’s Tavern.

When Mr. Hard was seen driving away from the tavern in an er As stated in the Case Details file for this assignment, White v. Gibbs is a case “in which Mrs. Mr. and Mrs. White left O’Malley’s Tavern, Mr. Hard left the bar, stumbling after them. He was visibly upset and chased them into the parking lot. Debbie White, swerving from side to side, hitting several other cars, and not being in control of his vehicle. Approximately one-half mile ing injuries to Mrs. White. Mr. Hard’s blood alcohol level was well-above above the legal limit.

Issue

The reason for this hearing is to argue whether sufficient evidence exists for the case to move to trial, or for the Judges to agree for the Defense's Motion for Summary Judgment, which is defined as:

A party may move for Summary Judgment, identifying each claim or Defense — or the part of each claim or Defense — on which Summary Judgment is sought. The court shall grant Summary Judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (Cornell Law Institute, 2013).

The legal issue before the Judges is whether or not the bartender, Mr. Gibbs, had actual knowledge that Mr. Hard was visible intoxicated. The Plaintiff case lies directly on the Dram Shop statue, which supports a civil liability for damages lawsuit. The statue states specifically that if

… (1) the person furnishing the alcoholic beverage had actual knowledge that the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was furnished was visibly intoxicated at the time the alcoholic beverage was furnished; and (2) the intoxication of the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was furnished was a proximate cause of the death, injury, or damage alleged in the complaint”, then the case should go to trial (indianalawblog.com).

Ruling

According to the Indiana Dram Shop Act, an individual who furnishes another with alcohol cannot be held responsible for the actions and repercussions that follow suit. The law states, in full:

a) As used in this section, "furnish" includes barter, deliver, sell, exchange, provide, or give away.

b) A person who furnishes an alcoholic beverage to a person is not liable in a civil action for damages caused by the impairment or intoxication of the person who was furnished the alcoholic beverage unless:

(1) the person furnishing the alcoholic beverage had actual knowledge that the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was furnished was visibly intoxicated at the time the alcoholic beverage was furnished; and

(2) the intoxication of the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was furnished was a proximate cause of the death, injury, or damage alleged in the complaint.

c) If a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age suffers injury or death proximately caused by the person's voluntary intoxication, the:

(1) person;

(2) person's dependents;

(3) person's personal representative; or

(4) person's heirs; may not assert a claim for damages for personal injury or death against a person who furnished an alcoholic beverage that contributed to the person's intoxication, unless subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) apply.

As added by P.L.80-1986, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.76-1996, SEC.1. (FindLaw, 2013)

Application

Attorney Walton’s Defense began by arguing that Summary Judgment should be awarded

1 of 8 (2008)

Attorney Walton negated this with, “there can be an inference of subjective actual knowledge, but there cannot be constructive knowledge.” Walton was then asked, “Can actual knowledge be shown by circumstantial evidence?” Jordan Van Meter Liberty University Moot Court Tournament Part 1 of 8 (2008)

Attorney his client because there was no “actual knowledge of visible intoxication” of Mr. Edward Hard by the bartender John Daniels, or Gibbs. Therefore, Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern should not be held liable under the Indiana Dram Shop Act.

Attorney Walton proceeded to explain that the courts should grant Summary Judgment because Hard was not engaging in any activities that would have actively demonstrated any signs of intoxication. One judge asked Walton if it was not true that Hard had “been drinkin a lot of evidence “may support an inference of actual knowledge, but circumstantial evidence may not be used to support the idea of constructive knowledge.” Jordan Van Meter Liberty University Moot Court Tournament Part 1 of 8 (2008)

Walton and his co-counsel Jordan Van Meter showed that Edward Hard did have a criminal intent to do injury when he drinks.” Walton affirmed this, then was asked if not merely witnessing the actual drinking was enough to have knowledge of Hard’s intoxication. Jordan Van Meter Liberty University Moot Court Tournament Part Walton responded by saying that the Indiana courts have held that circumstantial got into his car and followed the Whites down the road from the Tavern, subsequently crashing into them.

The author agrees with the Defendants. After hearing from Jordan Van Meter, the evidence strongly suggests Mr. Hard did not simply mean to stop the Whites and finish the discussion he started in the Tavern, he meant to do as much harm to Mr. White as he could.

the evidence, Mr. Hard had had at least 5 beers before the Whites had arrived, and totaled 6 alcoholic drinks in ½ hour. He engaged in a verbal argument with Mr. White, and said (about Mrs. White) “She should be my wife.” According to the Plaintiff’s attorney, Miss Amanda Babbitt, Mr. Hard only had an intention to stop the car the Whites were driving in order to finish the conversation which had begun earlier in the Tavern. She believes there was no intent to commit a criminal act, only an accident was a result from his drunk driving. Jordan Van Meter Liberty University Moot Court Tournament Part 5 of 8 (2008)

The author disagrees with Miss Babbitt after hearing more evidence against Mr. Hard. According to Jordan Van Meter Liberty University Moot Court Tournament Part 3 of 8 (2008).

The author bar, he said, “This is not over.” The author agrees with Mr. Van Meter that Mr. Hard had “intended to cause harm,” and he indeed did that. Jordan Van Meter Liberty University Moot Court Tournament Part 3 of 8 (2008)

Along the course of the hearing, the author became aware of the fact that although Mr. Hard did not appear to be “drunk”, in the normal sense, (Intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties. The Free Dictionary (2013) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/drunk ), he did fall off a bar stool. Attorney Walton gives an example from the 1983 Els also learned in 2006, that Mrs. White broke off a relationship with Mr. Hard. After the breakup he began showing signs of aggression such as pulling his hair out and drinking heavily. When Mr. Hard left the perman v Plump case, in where James Ewers did exhibit

constructive knowledge.” Jordan Van Meter Liberty University Moot Court Tournament Part 1 of 8 (2008)

The author visible signs of intoxication, putting his arm around another man and said “I love you.” The only activities observed by Mrs. White over the course of the evening was Mr. Hard falling off his stool and falling down in the doorway when he began to fight with another patron.

Attorney Walton explained that the Indiana courts have held that circumstantial evidence “may support an inference of actual knowledge, but circumstantial evidence may not be used to support the idea of believes that since Mr. Hard lacked the supposed “knowledge of visible intoxication,” showed signs of aggression (both prior and during this incident), and was unable to control the vehicle, he should be charged with criminal intent to commit a crime. Since Mrs. White observed Mr. Hard’s behavior during the course of the evening while he was drinking, and she did engage in a verbal argument with him, only later to be in the injury and that the injury was reasonably foreseeable, a reasonable foreseeable act.” Amanda Babbitt Liberty University Moot Court Tournament Part 5 of 8 (2008) She believes that the “whole point is that there was no intent to commit a criminal act-the whole accident was a result from his chased down by him while they were driving a half a mile down the road from the tavern, then Mr. Hard showed he has intent to commit a crime; it was not merely a plan to stop the Whites to finish the discussion that had begun previously that evening.

Miss Babbitt, attorney for the Plaintiff, says that the proximate cause might be enough to convict Mr. Hard. intoxication,” showed signs of aggression (both prior and during this incident), and was unable to control the vehicle, he should be charged with criminal intent to commit a crime. Since Mrs. White observed Mr. Hard’s behavior during the course of the evening while he was drinking, and she did engage She does not believe that he had any intent to commit a crime. She believes that it is merely the result of a proximate cause - a drunk driving incident. She states that proximate cause is “an act of events that sets in motion a chain of events that eventually results drunk driving.” Ibid

Conclusion

In summary, Patrick Gibbs & O’Malley’s Tavern should be held liable for the death of Mr. to be able to convict someone in a court of law. This case needs to move to trial.

However, since she does seem to be the “star witness,” as John Daniels did not observe any of Mr. Hard’s actions since he kept leaving the room, she should be cross-examined multiple times to make sure that the whole truth is spoken. There is insufficient evidence to support the notion that the bartender knew according to a subjective standard that Edward Hard was intoxicated prior to his last Mrs. White seems to be the only witness in this case of Mr. Hard’s actions when he became intoxicated at O’Malley’s Tavern. I believe that besides moving this case to trial, Mrs. White should be removed from the stand due to her emotional background with Mr. Hard. Judge should deny the Motion for Summary Judgment. As stated above, Summary Judgment merely means that there The fact that she was in a Write and the injuries sustained to Mrs. White. Although legally John Daniels is protected from being held liable for the actions of his drunken patrons, he has a moral duty to the Whites and everyone who may be on the road after he serves a customer. The is not sufficient evidence relationship with him may hinder this from being a fair trial. drink according to Indiana State law.

Biblical Perspective

The Bible says that murder is wrong. In Exodus 20:13, God says “You shall not murder.” accidentally killed another individual.)

However, one that intentionally commits a serious offence such as murder, must suffer punishment. The Bible is clear on this. The “do not commit murder” commandment comes with severe, they must suffer the consequences for their actions. The Bible does allow for an “accidental murder.” (Joshua 20:1-9 allows for places of refuge for those who accidentally killed another individual.)

However, one that intentionally commits a serious offence such as murder, must suffer punishment. The Bible is clear on this. consequences for those that break it. Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, Leviticus 24:17 and Matthew 26:52 are merely White. As Christians, we are called to live righteous and holy lives. WE are commanded to follow Scripture and to obey God’s commands. When someone commits an intentional crimeThe “do not commit murder” commandment comes with severe consequences

This could be The question presented to the court was whether or not Mr. Hard had a criminal intent to do harm to Mr. and Mrs. commanded to follow Scripture and to obey God’s commands. When someone commits an intentional crime, they must suffer the consequences for their actions. The Bible does allow for an “accidental murder.” (Joshua 20:1-9 allows for places of refuge for those who considered a form of Summary Judgment. Settling out of court and not taking someone to trial. In this case, however, this author believes that the judges should not grant a Summary Judgment for those that break it. Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, Leviticus 24:17 and Matthew 26:52 are merely some verses stating the punishment for murderers.

Filing for Summary Judgment, in my opinion, is an excellent way to settle disputes. Summary Judgment is, according to the dictionary:

“A court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A Summary Judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided they need not be tried.” Law.com Summary Judgment http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2063

This is Biblical. In Matthew 5:25, Jesus commands Christians to

“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.”

. Based upon the facts and evidence, Mr. Hard had a criminal intent to do harm to Mr. White. He killed Mr. White, while driving under the influence of alcohol, and therefore should be tried, convicted, and sentenced for a criminal act.

References:

Cornell Law Institute Rule 56. Summary Judgment (2013) Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 on 9/18/2013

Law.com Summary Judgment Retrieved from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2063 on 9/17/2013

Liberty University Liberty University Moot Court Tournament (2008 1L) Retrieved from http://bb7.liberty.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=/webapps/blackboard/execute/courseMain?course_id=_2002026_1 on 9/15/2013

The Free Dictionary (2013) Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/drunk on 9/18/2013

FindLaw Ind. Code § 7.1-5-10-15.5 : Indiana Code - Section 7.1-5-10-15.5: Person furnishing alcoholic beverage; civil liability for damages; "furnish" defined (2013) Retrieved from

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/71/5/10/7.1-5-10-15.5#sthash.imLhJiPg.dpuf on 9/19/2013

9