Ethical Decision-Making

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

This came to about 6 alcoholic beverages in within that sort timeframe. This is a total of 11 known alcoholic beverages served and consumed in such a shot period of time that it would be indicative to have observed signs of Intoxification.. Also the factor that his blood alcohol level of twice the legal limit would determine that the patron was served to Intoxification. In Jackson V Gore it is established that they can prove Actual Visual Knowledge of Intoxification.. The four factors of the server continued to serve the alcohol (13 in all charged) in a short period of time, collected the money , behavior of patron before service and leaving and behavior of patron upon leaving would establish an Actual Visual Knowledge of Intoxication. Plaintiff asks to deny the Motion of summary Judgment.

Count V-defendant did not show meaning effort to not allow Responsible party/defendant to leave party intoxicated

Defendant told a woman that her husband had been seriously injured (broken both his legs) and that she needed to go to

While transporting Mr. Baumchen to the Genesee County Jail he voluntarily made the statement that he was an alcoholic. He stated that he had been arrested for drunk driving before. Mr. Baumchen voluntarily made the statement that the last time he was arrested he was so drunk that the staff asked how he could be still standing. He stated that he wasn’t a baby doll. Mr. Baumchen also made the statement he drinks every day, it helps him sleep because he work third shift. Mr. Baumchen also made that statement the he wasn’t driving that he was attempting to get his truck unstuck.

Norris case which was brought up in the courtroom; Mr. Hard was not as drunk. (Ashlock v. Norris, 475 N.E.2d 1167, 1170 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). The bartender, Mr. John Daniels did not have any definite awareness of Mr. Hard’s intoxication. Mr. Daniels is not able to recall any unusual behavior that was displayed by Mr. Hard. He does not have any reclamation of observing Mr. Edward Hard tripping over the pool stick because he had stepped away from the room. He did witness an argument start at the entrance doorway between Mr. Bruno White and Mr. Edward Hard in which Mr. Hard provoked. There were no additional drinks served after the altercation took place, the final alcoholic beverage had been ordered and served prior to the incident and therefore is not said to be actual knowledge. The last drink is the cutoff point for the statue and where the definite ruling intervenes. The process is in order to try and obtain an abstract opinion from Mr. John Daniels stating that he had no familiarity of Mr. Hard being drunk. When Mr. Edward Hard left the O’Malley’s Tavern he followed Mr. Bruno White in a careless manner, damaging numerous vehicles and consequently hitting Mr. White’s automobile and killing him. The direct aim of Mr. Hard is being safeguarded with the implication of a motor vehicle accident while being intoxicated. The understanding and cause of the intoxication is not what is relevant, however the altercation that occurred at

Examining the witness statements it can be concluded that the alleged offence had taken place at a crowded nightclub with Low lighting and alcohol being served.

In order to successfully determine a resolution to the ethical dilemma presented, I will apply the Corey, Corey, Corey, and Callanan (2015, as cited in Sheperis, Henning, & Kocet, 2015) model. This model is categorized as a practice-based ethical decision-making model, providing concrete steps for me to follow. I find this model the most useful because it requires the counselor to consider many different aspects of a decision, including ethics, laws, morals, values, obtaining consultation, and generating multiple solutions. A helpful assertion of the theory is the acknowledgment that not all solutions are perfect and that counselors will need to recycle through stages, or look at them in a different order, to devise the best solution for both

There are several different ethical theories giving a decision maker a diverse way to make the best ethical decision. The author gives the readers multiple ways to consider a decision to prevent overlooking anyone or anything that has moral standing within the decision. To help explain the difference, we will use John Doe and his ethical decision he is faced with. John is a scientist and found a formula of unhealthy ingredients that taste just like sugar. He needs to decide whether or not to report this to his mass cookie-producing employer.

Ethics involves identifying and being able to understand the concepts of right and wrong and then decide on what the response should be to an ethical dilemma. By using philosophical approaches people are able to recognize the situation and then hopefully make informed decisions. While making decisions in an ethical dilemma, the ability to evaluate the decision within cognitive moral development, locus of control, moral disengagement and Machiavellianism will only help the process. This paper will further motivate the discussion of ethics and the process of making informed ethical decisions.

In society, individuals experience situations in which they tend to question whether their choices are ethical. In the article, “The Importance of Values and Cultures in Ethical Decision Making” by Christine Chimielewski, Chimielewski discusses the three principles which can help a person determine whether they are the good or bad choice. The three principles for making an ethical decision are “The Rule of Private Gain”, “Everyone Does It”, and “Benefits Versus Burden”. If a person is stuck in a situation where they’re indecisive about the choice, then the individual should look at the three principles. This article relates to the story, “Everyone Lives in a Flood Zone,” because of the main character, Jack finds himself in situations that he

Both philosophical approaches are infused with flaws, the use of “utilitarian” thinking is not always clear of what form of action should be taken or if the action you took will have a favorable outcome for the majority. It is difficult to judge what decision will supply the best way to respond to a situation. The universal approach unlike the utilitarian bases its decisions on the facts that the action taken is best for everyone regardless of the situation or the difference in people. My choice between the two is somewhat tossed, because my belief is that you should do unto other as you would want done to you, but at the same time my desire to ensure the greatest number of success is important to me as well. Within the Judicial system decisions are made with or without the input of others; however it is our moral obligation to ensure that we

The topic that I chose to write about this week is ethical decision making when it pertains to social workers. Ethics is described as the moral or right thing to do in any situation, whether it is business, healthcare, or social work. Social workers, in particular, have to make very tough ethical decisions when it concerns their clients. This article is reflecting how the person-in-situation handles a particular situation using their personal ethics.

The Defendant, George Tiba (“Defendant Tiba”) and L.A. were both at a local bar, Walrus, on the night of Feb. 16, 2013. Walrus is a commonly known as a college bar, often filled with students from the University of Colorado. Defendant Tiba offered to purchase beverages for L.A. and her friend, who both accepted. Afterwards, Defendant Tiba continued to make inappropriate contact and statements to L.A. during their time at the bar. After a period of time, Defendant Tiba drove L.A. back to her apartment where the offenses occurred early in the morning on Feb. 17, 2013. L.A. went to the hospital later in the day on Feb. 17, where a SANE examination was conducted by a SANE certified nurse. From the evidence collected, the District Attorney commenced

The prosecution wants you to believe that the waiter negligently served an intoxicated customer who assaulted the plaintiff. That may