Courtroom Observation

Topics: Alcoholic beverage Pages: 5 (2129 words) Published: April 1, 2013
Courtroom Observation
Liberty University presented a case of White v. Gibbs which is about Mrs. Debbie White and Patrick Gibbs under the civil provisions of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5. In this case Mrs. Debbie White sued Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. Because White and Gibbs do not live in the same states, the suit was brought in diversity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. However, the suit will be decided under Indiana state law. The main goal of this courtroom is to argue the motion for summary judgment which is concerning the case of Mrs. Debbie White, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. In this case, the plaintiff is Debbie White. Two moot court attorneys who are Amanda Babbitt and Jack Walsh represent Mrs. White. The defendants are Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. Also two other moot court attorneys who are Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter represent the defendants which are Mr. Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. On that day which Bruno White was killed, Debbie White and Bruno White went to O’Malley’s tavern to have dinner around 7:00p.m. Also, Mr. Hard who is Mrs. White’s former fiancé was at O’Malley’s at that time. When Mr. and Mrs. White came to the restaurant, Mr. Hared moved toward to them and he gave congratulations about their marriage. After he talked to them, he returned to his sit and kept drinking the alcohol beverages. Mr. Hard drank about six shots of whisky in about twenty eight minutes according to John Daniel and Mrs. White. John Daniel who was the only bartender at O’Malley’s Tavern that night was a licensed bartender and he served each and every shot of alcohol beverage to Mr. Hard that night. Mr. Hard stood up and knocked over his stool. Customers who were at O’Malley’s Tavern witnessed him fall after this accident. They were also aware of his intoxicated state. After he recovered his consciousness, he sat back on his stool and Mr. Daniels gave him another beer. When Mr. and Mrs. White were leaving O’Malley’s Tavern, Mr. Hard yelled “She should be my wife!” After that, he followed them and tried to strike them, however, he just fall to the floor. When Mr. and Mrs. Whites were leaving from O’Malley’s Tavern, Mr. Hard got on his vehicle and he begun to chase the Mr. and Mrs. Whites’. While he was chasing them he shouted, “This isn’t over yet” (Gumprecht) Mr. White called to 911 for asking their help. “Approximately a half-mile from the tavern, Mr. White turned left while Mr. Hard, driving on the wrong side of the street and without slowing down, slammed into the Whites’ driver-side door” (Gumprecht). Mr. Bruno White was killed and Mrs. White sustained significant injuries from the accident caused by Mr. Hard. “Beyond the emotional suffering incurred by Mrs. White as the result of the death of her husband Mrs. White has sustained significant injuries to the left side of her body” (Gumprecht). Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter present the argument for the defendants who are Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern by saying that there was no actual knowledge of visible intoxication and proximate causation which is required under the Indiana Dram Shop Act. According to Mr. Walton, there was no evidence which could show that Mr. Hard engaged in any activities which would make him to appear to be intoxicated. According to the Dram Shop Act, visible intoxication is required. With this information offered by the defense and also supported by the Indiana Seventh Circuit Court and the Indiana Supreme Court constructive knowledge of intoxication would not be enough because actual knowledge is required under the act. Therefore, in this case constructive knowledge would not be enough when it came to determining visible intoxication that is required under this act. Because Mr. Hard was sitting on a barstool, Mr. Daniel was not able to find out if Mr. Hard was intoxicated or not. Also, Mr. Daniels did not see when Mr. Hard tripped over the...

Bibliography: Gumpresht, M. E. (2008, March 12). Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Civil Action No. 82A04-8876-CV-285
Gaines - Tabb v. ICI Explosives, USA, Inc., 160 F. 3d 613, 621 (10th Cir. 1998).
Chrisman, Esq., R (2011). Presentation: Understanding Agency and Employment Relationships [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from Liberty University Blackboard website
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Courtroom Observation Paper
  • This is a paper I wrote describing my observations during a trip to the Wayne County court house.
  • Court Observation Report Essay
  • Courtroom Workgroups Essay
  • Technology Used in Courtrooms Essay
  • Observations Essay
  • Observations Essay
  • Observation Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free