Court Room Observation

Facts of the Case

Case Posture

The video of case number 82A04-8876-CV-285, White vs. Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern, is a video where the defendant is going before judges seeking summary judgment as a matter of law in their favor. Debbie White has sued Patrick Gibbs under the civil provisions of Indiana's Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5. This case was brought in diversity before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana due to the parties residing in two different states. The case will be decided under Indiana state law.

The purpose of this trial is to argue the motion of summary judgment. A summary judgment is "a procedure used during civil litigation to quickly resolve a case without a trial. The judge grants summary judgment only if there are no disputes as to the material facts of the case and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Summary+Judgment)

Parties

The plaintiff in this case is Mrs. White and attorneys Amanda Babot and Jackson Walsh represent her. The defendant in this case is Mr. Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern being represented by Attorneys Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter.

Mr. Walton is addressing the issue of actual knowledge of visual intoxication as required under the Indiana Dram Shop Act. Mr. Walton argued that Mr. Hard was not engaging in any activities that would have adequately demonstrated intoxication. Hard was simply sitting at a bar in the presence of John Daniels, the bartender. The only evidence of Mr. Hart being intoxicated is that he was more "chatty" than usual. According to the Indiana Supreme Court, "if increased talkativeness is the only evidence, that is insufficient as a matter of law to support any reasonable inference of actual knowledge." (Delta ta Delta).

Mr. Van Meter is addressing the issue of approximate causation for the defense. Mr. Hard's criminal act is a super ceding intervening cause, which breaks the cause of connection between the negligence of the defendant and the injury. Also, because this was a criminal act, the injury that resulted was not a natural and probable consequence that was reasonably foreseeable in light of the circumstances.

Mr. Walsh, the plaintiff's attorney, is presenting the issue of actual knowledge of intoxication. Mr. Walsh is arguing against summary judgment based on two reasons. First, Indiana Courts have held that when a reasonable inference of evidence and circumstances of a case could result in more than one conclusion, summary judgment is inappropriate. Second, the jury could infer that the bartender had actual knowledge of the visible intoxication of Mr. Hard when he last served him alcohol.

Ms. Babot is arguing against summary judgment based on approximate cause due to three reasons. First, there are reasonable inferences that a jury could make in favor of the plaintiff. Second, the injuries to Mrs. White were the reasonable and foreseeable consequences of serving an intoxicated patron. Thirdly, a criminal can be the intervening act that does not break the chain of causation because the act is reasonably foreseeable. Ms. Babot listed four factors that a judge has to look at when considering approximate. What and how much alcohol was consumed, what is the amount of time it was served in, the conditions of the patron before leaving the bar, and the condition of the patron immediately after leaving (03/28/85 SUSAN J. ASHLOCK v. ROBERT F. NORRIS

COURT OF APPEALS