Courtroom Observation Paper

Courtroom Observation Paper

Courtroom Observation

This is a motion for summary judgment. In case Debra White V Patrick Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern. Summary judgment is a procedural device available for disposition of a controversy without trial. A judge will grant summary judgment only if all the written evidence before the court clearly establishes that there are no disputed issues of material fact and the party who request the summary judgment is entitled to prevail as a matter of law (Bagley, Savage 6th edition).

The defendants in this case are Patrick Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern, who claim that there was not actual knowledge that the bartender John Daniels knew that the patron Edward Hard was intoxicated before he served him his last drink. Without actual knowledge the defendant would not be subject to any wrongdoing.

The plaintiff Debra White contends that there is more than one reasonable inference to contend that the bartender had actual knowledge of Edward Hard being intoxicated before he was served his last drink and that motion of summary judgment should be denied. They referenced to the amount of time that Mr. Hard consumed the alcoholic beverages the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed in that time, his actions before leaving the bar and his actions after leaving the bar.

The defendant also argued that intoxication was not the proximate cause of the injury and there is no issue in material fact. Therefore summary judgment is required by law. Proximate cause is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence, without which no injury would have occurred. The defendant stated that the chronological order of the events that had taken place before the death of injury of Mrs. White and the death of her husband shows intent by Mr. Hard which would override the fact of intoxication. The chronological order would be the 2006 breakup of Mrs. White and Mr. Hard which caused anger, resentment and jealousy, Mr. Hard had a tattoo on his arm of Mrs. White and always showed it, never covered it up, also told Mr. White that she should be his wife and told Mr. White after they had an argument in the bar that "this is not over yet", before following them out of the bar. The defendant states that because this was a criminal act it is the superceding intervening cause above all other proximate causes.

The plaintiff claims that there are reasonable inferences in regard to proximate cause, it was not the result of a criminal act that breaks the chain of causation. But a result of a patron served beyond the point of intoxication. Which brought about a foreseeable injury to the plaintiff and death to her husband.

I agree with the appellant and think that the motion for summary judgment should be denied. There seems to be a reasonable inference that there could have been either actual knowledge the bartender should have known of Mr. Hard being intoxicated before he served him his last drink