On July 28, 2007, Bruno White was killed and his wife, Deborah White, was seriously injured in a car accident when Edward Hard collided with their automobile. At around 700 p.m., Mr. and Mrs. White entered OMalleys Tavern. Mr. Hard, Deborah Whites ex-fiance, was also at OMalleys when Mr. and Mrs. White arrived. Mr. Hard purchased a total of thirteen alcoholic beverages in the span of two and a half hours. Mr. Hard testified that he drank at least five alcoholic beverages prior to the arrival of Mr. and Mrs. White. John Daniels, the bartender, testified that starting at 707 p.m., he served Mr. Hard five shots of whiskey and one beer within a half an hour period. Mr. Daniels stated that he did not see any visible signs of Mr. Hard being intoxicated when the last drink was served. Mrs. White also testified that she had did not see any visible signs of Mr. Hard being intoxicated while they are at the tavern. As Mr. and Mrs. White left OMalleys Tavern, Mr. Hard yelled that Mrs. White should be his wife. Mr. Hard unsuccessfully tried to hit Mr. White and ended up falling on the ground. In the police report, Mr. Daniels stated that by the time Mr. Hard left the tavern, Mr. Hard appeared to be very drunk.
After Mr. Hard entered his vehicle, he hit three cars in the parking lot and a mailbox as he began to pursue Mr. and Mrs. White. When Mr. White attempted to make a left turn, Mr. Hard, who was driving on the wrong side of the street, slammed into Mr. and Mrs. Whites vehicle. The police report stated that Mr. Hard had a blood alcohol content of .20, while the legal limit in Indiana is .08.
The appellants claimed that it is possible for a patron to be intoxicated without showing any visible signs of intoxication. Mr. Hard was sitting on a bar stool as he consumed the alcohol being served and failed to show any visible signs of intoxication to Mr. Daniels. By the time Mr. Daniels noticed Mr. Hard was intoxicated, Mr. Hard already received his last drink. According to counsel, the tavern would not be liable for Mr. Hards subsequent actions because the statute requires the person furnishing the alcoholic beverages have actual knowledge the patron is visibly intoxicated at the time the person is furnishing the alcohol, not after the last drink has already been served.
Appellants counsel also claims that Mr. Hards intoxication was not the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Mrs. White due to Mr. Hards pre-existing intent to harm Mr. White. Counsel cited Fast Eddies v. Hall 688 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), which held that the willful, malicious criminal act of a third party is an intervening act which breaks the causal chain between the alleged negligence and the resulting harm. Counsel argued that Mr. Hards hostile behavior towards Mr. White showed the intent to commit a criminal act. Therefore, intoxication was not the proximate cause of Mr. Hards actions.
Deborah Whites counsel claimed that Mr. Daniels had actual knowledge of Mr. Hards visible intoxication. Counsel stated that factors such as what and how much the person was known to have consumed, the time involved, the persons behavior at the time, and the persons condition shortly after leaving, should be taken into account to determine a persons actual knowledge of patrons intoxication. Ashlock v. Norris 475 N.E.2d 1167, 1170 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). Mr. Daniels had a computerized record of how many drinks Mr. Hard ordered and he stated that he could tell Mr. Hard was very drunk. Appellees counsel argued that all of these factors show that Mr. Daniels had actual knowledge that Mr. Hard was visibly intoxicated.
Appellees counsel argued that Mr. Hards intoxication was the proximate cause of the injuries caused by the automobile accident. Counsel argued that Mr. Hard being intoxicated set into motion the events that led to Mrs. White being injured. Considering that Mr. Hard was intoxicated when he left the tavern and decided to drive his vehicle, it was reasonably foreseeable that he could kill or seriously injure someone. Appellees counsel claimed that based on the evidence, a jury could reasonably infer more than one conclusion regarding the disputed issues, therefore the summary judgment should be denied.
I agree with the appellee that the motion for summary judgment should be denied. There are genuine issues of material fact in this case that should be set forth before a trier of fact. There is the possibility that actual knowledge of intoxication can be shown with circumstantial evidence, therefore the case should not be merely dismissed based on Mr. Danielss testimony that he did not see Mr. Hard show any visible signs of intoxication. Both parties had strong arguments regarding whether or not Mr. Hard possessed the intent to commit a criminal act. Factors such as Mr. Hards hostile behavior toward Mr. White and the fact that he was obviously intoxicated should be taken into account and decided by a jury to determine if the intoxication was a proximate cause of Mrs. Whites injuries.
According to a biblical worldview, the issue of the taverns responsibility to the patrons in the bar may differ from the limited liability cited in Ind. Code Ann. 7.1-5-10-15.5. Appellants counsel argued that the tavern is only liable if the bartender has actual knowledge that the patron is intoxicated when the bartender is furnishing the alcoholic beverage. Even though Mr. Daniels stated that he could tell Mr. Hard was very drunk right before he exited the bar, it can be argued that according to the law, he did not need to intervene at that point. From a biblical perspective, it is important to mitigate any harm that could be caused to another when there is a chance to safely intervene. Even though Mr. Daniels may not have been legally obligated to stop Mr. Hard from getting in his vehicle, from a moral standpoint, he would have helped protect Mr. Hard and any people Mr. Hard ended up endangering, by preventing him from leaving the bar and getting in the car. As one of the judges mentioned during the competition, he believes he should be able exercise his capacity as a judge to interpret the law in such a way that holds the tavern liable in order to prevent people in Mr. Hards position from endangering the people in the community. The judges perspective illustrates the issue that every major legal tradition struggles to link its formal structures and processes with the beliefs and ideals of its people. Law and religionexist in dialectical interaction.
Even though all of the laws currently in place may not be a direct reflection of the biblical worldview, I think the judicial system currently in place is a good method for resolving disputes. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws while considering the intent of the legislature and the circumstances regarding each particular case. Judges in this country have always had to maintain the balance between what is morally right and what is legal. Ultimately, it is important for every citizen, not only those in the legal community, to understand that laws and our actions should be utilized to preserve harmony, protect those who are vulnerable and be a reflection of our respect for each other as human beings.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment