A Short Note On Ms. Carlson 's Accident

On Sunday 26 June 1994 9:30am, the Appellant attended a breakfast at the Respondent’s premises. She commenced drinking champagne and wine, which were both supplied by the Respondent and by her friends. At 12:30pm she purchased a bottle from the Respondent, and continued to drink more alcohol. At 2:20pm, the Appellant’s friend was leaving and the Appellant decided to stay longer with her new friends. At 3:00pm, the Appellant attempted to buy more alcohol, but the Respondent refused to supply it to her. By 5:30pm, due to her disruptive behaviour

In the instance of drunk driving, the actions of the drunk driver are related to the safety of the drivers within their proximity and therefore affects not only the driver but others as well. Our previous moral experiences allow us to determine what the intentions of the drunk driver might be. Some drivers may choose to drive under the influence of alcohol because they have had an emergency that requires them to be at a certain place and they do not have the means to reach to their destination except for driving themselves. In this case, the context becomes complicated and intricate. However, if the driver is risking his own and other drivers’ safety, it becomes clear that their intentions are based on nonchalance and disregard for others.

Blair, M. Elizabeth, and Eva Hyatt. "College Students' Attributions of Responsibility For a Drunk Driving Accident." Advances in Consumer Research28, no. 1 (2001): 449.

We have had further discussions with Mr. Ashiku, Mr. Zubairi, and Ms. Kristen Finkensher, the bartender on duty on the night of the occurrence. Their statements are consistent with the facts stated in our prior report. In short, on the night of the incident, the City of South Elgin was hosting its annual festival, Riverfest, near the pub. There were light towers located throughout the festival grounds, which illuminated the surrounding buildings, including the pub. Plaintiff came into the pub, ordered one beer and, at some point, left the pub. An unknown patron then alerted Ashiku and his bartender that Plaintiff had fallen near the bottom of the stairs. Plaintiff refused assistance from the bartender including an offer to call an ambulance and left in a vehicle driven by her friend. The lights above the stairs were functional and the village’s light towers brightly illuminated the stairs. The bartender described the plaintiff as being about 5’8” tall and weighing about 300 pounds. She believes

they were in possession of alcohol, or had attempted to purchase alcohol, or drank alcohol or

El Chico Corp., 732 S.W.2d 306. For instance, in Bruce, the court held that the inebriated state of a pair of customers of the defendant’s restaurant may be deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the restaurant based on circumstantial evidence alone even if the defendant had not possessed actual knowledge of the pair’s condition. Bruce v. K.K.B., Inc., 52 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001). The plaintiffs in Bruce suffered serious injuries after his car was struck by an intoxicated driver (a member of the aforementioned pair), who die died in the crash, who was driving home from the defendant’s restaurant. Id. In spite of testimony to the contrary by both the restaurant’s employees and the surviving member of the pair, the court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to exhibit that the driver had been “obviously intoxicated to the extent that she presented a clear danger to herself and other” at the time of service. Id. Analogously, in Perseus, the inebriated nature of a patron of the defendant’s bar was deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the defendant, even if the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the patron’s condition, since the defendant should have had knowledge of the customer’s condition. Perseus, Inc. 995 S.W.2d 202. The defendants in Perseus. were sued after the aforementioned patron hit and killed two people after leaving

At 9 or 9.30 pm one of defendant’s friend saw him at David’s apartment and he was intoxicated.

Imagine a close friend is planning to go out and celebrate this weekend. You know your friend intends to drink and may experiment with drugs. You are not only concerned for her well-being but also worried that she might get behind the wheel and drive. Using the information you learned in module 8, write a paragraph persuading your friend to make safe choices. List at least 3 dangers she may face and 2 alternatives for her to safely and legally enjoy the celebration.

The State of Setonia should recognize the social host liability and develop the common-law duty of social hosts to prevent their guests, though reasonable care concept, from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or while intoxicated.

RA Zeigler decided to contact ADRL Jean Barnard once again to clarify on what we should do. ADRL Barnard said not to search the room for alcohol, only document what they see. RA Shaw, RA Zeigler, and RA Bokar found a case of 24 12 oz. bottles of Miller Lite, with five in the case and two in the trash. On the floor and in the trash we found 11 cans of Natural Lite beer. OPD Officer Frazee supervised the RA’s while they were taking away the alcohol. However, OPD Office Frazee handled the alcohol and disposed of it after the RA’s collected it. RA Bokar called up Hanby Resident James “Jimmy” Carpenter, who was in Clements Lounge all night with RA Bokar watching the game, to explain what was happening in the room. Hanby Resident Carpenter was very understanding. However, the alcohol belonged to Hanby Resident Thomas “Tommy” Bartfai. Because Hanby Resident Bartfai was not present in the room, RA Shaw handed the red card to Hanby Resident Carpenter to give to his roommate. RA Bokar and Hanby Resident Carpenter informed Hanby Resident Bartfai that he had been

poor judgment, road conditions, weather, etc. which could ultimately result in injury, permanent disability, or death. I further assume all responsibility related to complying with all applicable motor vehicle laws, including but not limited to: (listed known and unknown laws/rules associated with driving – i.e. those concerning vehicle safety, vehicle operation, insurance, and the transportation and consumption of alcoholic beverages, etc.) I realize that I am responsible for any injuries to persons or property, which may be incurred in connection with traveling to this event.

During my stay at Wolf Lake with Austin (my boyfriend) and part of his family, Austin’s father entered into a stage of unprovoked, irrational anger while under the influence of alcohol. Throughout the period of multiple hours Austin’s father spoke cruelly and insensitively to multiple people who in return attempted to only mediate the situation and to not instigate him any further. Nerveless his verbal abuse was unrelenting and only discontinued the next morning when he woke. That day Austin’s father was very apologetic to everyone for his irrational behavior and stated that his malicious words had been uncalled for and were only the result of him consuming an excessive amount of alcohol.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Corporate liability lies within the hand of Quantum Software while hosting these “Beer Bust” parties for employees, especially on company grounds. Owners, Stan and Erin want to create a work atmosphere that is team-oriented, high in morale, and sociable. They attempt to create this atmosphere with the “Beer Bust” in an effort to allow employees to “blow a little steam off while socializing over a beer” (Brown, 2011). However, the “Beer Bust” can cause major issues for the company should an employee become overly intoxicated, resulting in them hurting themselves or possibly someone else.

The defendant church sold meals after the religious services and argued that the plaintiff was a licensee, not an invitee. The plaintiff had alleged that she was an invitee because the plaintiff bought a meal after the service at the church cafe. Plaintiff also alleged that because she had spent money at the church on prior occasions she was an invitee. The court rejected the argument and reasoned that the prior financial dealing with the church would have no bearing on her status at the time of the accident. The court held that the plaintiff was a licensee. Sanders, 303 Mich.App. at 7, 840 N.W.2d at