Courtroom Observation 82A04-8876-CV-285, Deborah White vs. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern Liberty University Bust 301 The case being observed here was that of Deborah White vs. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, case # 82A04-8876-CV-285. This was brought before a mock U. S. District Court panel of Judges, in the Northern District of Indiana. The Plaintiff being Deborah White, and the Defendant being Patrick Gibbs and O’Malleys Tavern. The Plaintiffs’ Attorneys are Amanda Babbit and Jakson Walsh and the attorneys for the defendant are Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter.
In this case the defendant’s ttorneys are seeking a summary Judgment for their client. This is a kind of resolution that would allow for them to avoid going to trial only if the Judge sees fit to deem that there are no disputes to the material facts of this case. And on the opposing side the Plaintiff Deborah white is requesting that the courts deny the defendants request for summary Judgment. On that Saturday night at the tavern is where everything began. July 28, 2007, Gary Indiana. Bruno and Deborah White went to eat dinner at O’Malley’s Tavern.
Edward Hart was at the same tavern that night drinking heavily. Hart was the ex-fianc?© of Mrs. White and came over to congratulate them on their recent marriage. Mr. Hart went back to the bar where he was served multiple alcoholic beverages by the only licensed bartender on duty, Mr. Daniels. He proceeded to consume six shots of whiskey in 30 minutes and when he attempted to get up he fell out of his stool and tripped over a pool stick, but was able to regain his composure, none of which was witnessed by the bartender. After this incident witnessed by the other patrons and not the bartender, Mr.
Hard is served one last beer. Now the White’s stand up to eave at which point Mr. Hard yells, “She should have been my wife”, as the White’s approach the exit. The White’s ignore this and continue to the exit. Then Mr. Hard approached them and attempts to swing at Mr. White and knocks himself off balance and falls to the ground. He continued to follow the White’s into the parking lot where he then yells “This isn’t over yet”, at this point the bartender realizes and acknowledges that Mr. Hard is obviously drunk. The whites pull off and Mr.
Hard gets in his vehicle and proceeds to give chase, striking several vehicles on his way out of the parking lot. Once the White’s notice Hard is chasing them they call 911 to report it. About a half mile up the road the White’s make a left turn, Hard driving on the wrong side of the road already strikes the drive side of the vehicle killing Mr. White and severely injuring Mrs. White. grounds that the bartender being the soul responsible party for supplying the alcohol, never visibly confirmed that the patron was intoxicated prior to serving him his last drink.
In order for the bar to be responsible in some way the bartender would have had to have actual knowledge of the patron being intoxicated not simply onstructive knowledge. Constructive knowledge would be such that if the bartender simply assumes due to the amount of alcohol consumed that the patron is intoxicated rather than actually witnessing an action of drunkenness such as stumbling or falling down. This is the defenses entire case, the fact that the bartender never gained actual knowledge of the patrons’ intoxication until after he had been served his last drink.
This logic is based off of the Dram Shop Rule, which states “a business which sells alcoholic drinks or a host who serves liquor to a drinker ho is obviously intoxicated or close to it, strictly liable to anyone injured by the drunken patron or guest. ” If the defendants are successful in proving that there were no visible signs of intoxication then they will not be subject to any legal wrong doings. The Prosecution claims that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the bartender John Daniels did see visible signs of intoxication in the patron.
The patron Edward Hart had consumed eleven drinks in a span of two hours while he was at the tavern. Regardless of how well you can hold your alcohol that much in that short of ime would seem enough visible evidence to prove drunkenness, not to mention the six shots in which he consumed in Just under thirty minutes. He had also been seen falling out of his stool and tripping over a pool stick as he attempted to get out of his seat. Mr. Hards BAC was later recorded as being 2. 0 which is above the legal limit of . 08 as determined by the police report.
Daniels admitted that Hard looked intoxicated while leaving and the evidence on the bar tab supports this by showing Hard had consumed 13 alcoholic drinks while being served by Mr. Daniels. The argument that the defense brings up is a good one, based off the Dram shop act, visible intoxication is required to be seen by the party serving the alcohol to hold them responsible for the actions after. If they can’t visibly see intoxication they are free and clear if the patron leaves and causes an accident or other happening.
The defense also claims that the intoxication was not the primary cause of the accident, that it was due to the fact that Mr. hard wished to do harm to Mr. White i. e. Commit a crime. Unless the tavern had prior knowledge of Mr. Hard’s intent to ommit a crime before serving him then they would again not be responsible for his actions after he drank. In support of this point the defense brings up that the plaintiff was a victim of a crime not an act of inattentiveness caused by the bar and its owners.
Both sides bring up some very good points and have supported their points with valid examples. Although if I were to pick one side over the other based on all the fact of the matter is the defense had the best argument. The fact that the prosecution could not prove actual knowledge by the bartender was the point that won them the case. Yes he drank to excess, yes he was drunk, and yes he acted drunk after he got out of the stool, but the bartender never saw any outward signs of intoxication until after he had served him his last drink.
And the fact that he acted out of pent up anger not solely off of the fact that he was intoxicated. Drinking and becoming intoxicated was a factor but was not the primary factor that caused Mr. Hard to act the way he did. In conclusion through the eyes of the biblical world view I believe the man person responsible that night was Mr. Hard himself. I also think Mr. Daniel should have tepped in to help a fellow man in distress out and advise him not to drink so much and to use the word of god to save his soul from the destructive path he was heading down.
Unfortunately neither Mr. Daniels or Mr. Hard used their heads enough that night and rather than using the word of god to heal the open wounds, Mr. Hard took a life and ruined others through his selfish acts. I believe that they should have come together to resolve their issues in a godly manner. I also think the laws of today are much different than biblical law, and modern law needs some work to create more biblical Justice in this world. References Gumprecht, M. E. (2008, March 12).
Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment Civil Action No. 82A04-8876-CV-285. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from T. Nelson. (1982)Holy Bible: The new King James version, containing the Old and New Testaments. Nashville, TN Wayne, l. (n. d. ). Biblical worldview. Retrieved from http://www. christianworldview. net/ Resolving conflict. (n. d. ). Retrieved from http:// www. openbible. info/topics/resolving_conflict Schlachter, D. D. (2006). God, conflict, and zealous advocacy. Retrieved from http://www. peacemaker. net/site/