Courtroom Observation Paper Essay Example

intoxicated and this caused their death, injury, or damage. The plaintiff claims they have fulfilled both requirements and there are disputes over important facts that would prevent granting the defendants' motion. They ask the Court to deny the motion and continue with the trial. To properly review the Moot Trial, I acknowledge the significance of understanding the definitions of a Summary Judgment Claim and Proximate Cause.

According to the Free Dictionary by Farflex, a Summary Judgment Claim is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a Matter of Law. (web. 26 Feb. 2012 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Summary+Judgment)

A Summary Judgment Motion would be awarded when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule56, web. 1 Mar. 2012 http://www.uscourts.gov)

To be granted the motion, the Appellants' in this case would have to demonstrate that there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case.

The Appellants argue that their client did not have "actual knowledge" that Mr.Hard was visibly intoxicated at the time he received his last drink, and thus, they believe that court should grant their motion as a Matter of Law.

The Appellee must demonstrate the existence of matters that require jury attention, hence the motion should be denied. Additionally, I examined the definition of "Proximate Cause." As stated by the Free Dictionary by Farflex, Proximate Cause refers

to an action that directly and naturally results in an injury, without which the injury would not have transpired. Proximate cause is the main instigator of an injury and is not necessarily the closest or initial event that triggers a sequence leading to said injury.

The concept of proximate cause, also known as legal cause, refers to producing specific and predictable consequences without the involvement of any independent or unforeseen cause. According to the source (web. 26 Feb. 2012 http://legal-dictionary. thefreedictionary. com/proximate+cause), the Appellants in this case must demonstrate that their bartender, John Daniels, serving excessive alcoholic drinks to Mr. Hard, was not the "proximate cause" of the plaintiff's injuries or her husband's death. Additionally, they must establish that Mr. Daniels had no knowledge of Mr. Hard's visible intoxication when serving him his final drink.

The plaintiff must demonstrate that Mr. Daniels was aware of Mr. Hard's intoxication and that the actions resulting from his intoxicated state were foreseeable and directly caused the incident. While participating in the Moot Trial, I encountered the term "foreseeability," which needed clarification for me to form an opinion on the motion. As per the definition given by the Free Dictionary by Farlex, foreseeability pertains to the capacity to perceive, know beforehand, or reasonably expect that damage or injury is likely to occur due to acts or omissions.

The concept of foreseeability in the law of Negligence is established by proving that a person of ordinary intelligence and circumspection should reasonably have predicted the risk of harm caused by their negligence. This applies to the primary cause of the injury, regardless of the defendant's expectations regarding the actual event or

the manner of causing injuries. In this case, the Appellants need to demonstrate that had Mr. Daniels not known about Mr. Hard's visible intoxication after serving him his last drink, he would not have been able to foresee Mr. Hard's actions.

Observations

The Lawyers for the Appellants are employing wordplay to bolster their argument in this case, contending that the terms "actual knowledge" and "visibly intoxicated" are pivotal. They argue that since the bartender did not witness Mr. Hard being excessively drunk or experiencing physical mishaps, the defendant could not have had "actual knowledge" of Mr. Hard's state as "visibly intoxicated." Nevertheless, I strongly dissent from this viewpoint and assert that their motion should be denied. I have several justifications backing my position.

Our laws provide a framework that can be interpreted in various ways. Common sense should not be disregarded. In the case of the Appellants, Mr. Walton argued that the bar tender, John Daniels, did not have "actual knowledge" or witness Mr. Hard being visibly intoxicated, which are requirements according to the Statute (Ind. Code Ann. § 7. 1-5-10-15. 5). However, even if Mr. Daniels did not witness Mr. Hard being extremely drunk, it is hard to believe that a bartender who served a patron 13 drinks, 6 of which were hard liquor, over a couple of hours would have no understanding of their intoxication. Deposition testimony showed that other patrons, including the plaintiff, observed the defendant's obvious state of intoxication.

It is reasonable to assume that if patrons witnessed Mr. Hard being drunk, then it is logical to assume that the person serving him the drinks should have also noticed it.

In one of the cases discussed in the hearing, Jackson v. Gore, Essex and Goex, Inc., 634 N.E. 2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), the same waitress at a restaurant served her customer around 10-13 drinks over a span of 5 hours. Subsequently, the customer struck a pedestrian after leaving the establishment, resulting in severe injuries.

The Court in the Jackson case stated that it is reasonable to infer that the waitress had actual knowledge of the patron's intoxication since she had ample opportunity to observe him while he was visibly and obviously intoxicated. The Court explained that actual knowledge can be inferred from facts that reasonably indicate knowledge. The waitress, who had a long opportunity to serve and observe the patron, had "ample opportunity" to know that he was visibly and obviously intoxicated. By applying this case, one could infer that Mr. Daniels also had "ample opportunity" to know that Mr. Hard was visibly and obviously intoxicated because he was the one making and serving alcohol to him for two hours. This inference is based on common sense. Consequently, I would support the Appellee's argument. On the other hand, Mr. VanMeter, in his argument for the Appellant, claimed that it wasn't Mr. Hard's intoxication that caused Mrs. White's injuries and her husband's death, but rather a willful and wanton criminal act committed by Mr.

Mr. VanMeter claimed that Mr. Hard's excessive drinking and anger were a result of Mrs. White breaking off their engagement and marrying someone else. He argued that Mr. Hard had a strong anger and resentment towards Mrs. White and her husband. Although I found Mr. VanMeter's argument well-presented, I found

it somewhat amusing. Even if Mr. Hard did have a vendetta against the Whites, there is no way he could have known they would be at O'Malley's Tavern on the night of the incident, let alone plan an attack with his car.

Despite having time to sit in his barstool and watch the Whites entering the tavern, Mr. Hard became increasingly angry as he consumed more alcohol. It is here that I believe Mr. Daniels, the bartender, served Mr. Hard excessive amounts of alcohol, leading to his intoxication and loss of judgment, ultimately causing the accident involving the Whites. The combination of his previous animosity towards the Whites and the excessive consumption of alcohol created a dangerous situation. However, regardless of Mr. Hard's state, it does not excuse his actions.

Although aware of Mr. Hard's intentions against the Whites, the bartender should have known that excessive alcohol consumption could harm both individuals and others. As previously mentioned, Mr. Daniels had ample opportunity to observe Mr. Hard's intoxicated state and should have either declined to serve him or made arrangements for his transportation home. Failure to do so ultimately resulted in this accident, which can be classified as a direct cause of injury that would not have occurred otherwise. Hence, Mr.

Daniels' decision to keep serving Mr. Hard, despite his increasing level of intoxication, would have sufficed as a demonstration of "proximate cause." At the very minimum, the Court should acknowledge that this is a question that ought to be raised by a jury and should dismiss the motion based on those grounds.

Biblical World View

As Christians, we believe that God offers

guidance for resolving our "legal issues." I personally believe that according to the Bible, Christians are not prohibited from going to court. The question here is whether this case should be presented before a jury or if the court should decide in favor of the defendant.

The Bible was used to support my argument and multiple instances were found that highlight the significance of self-defense. In Romans 13, Paul acknowledges that God has implemented laws for our protection, including situations where legal action through the court system is permissible. These laws encompass commandments against adultery, murder, theft, false witness, and coveting. Essentially, all other commandments can be condensed into this statement.