Mark Gable Thesis Statement

1080 Words5 Pages
Mark Gable was a 19 years old. He was a “houseman” in the Northfield Hilton. His work shifts were 10 pm to 6.30 am. During few months in the work shifts a supervisor (Jim) provided alcohol to workers. It was a “Miller Time” hours before the end of the work schedule when everyone finished work’s duties. On 15 January, an accident happened when all workers had a “Miller Time” and decided to go to swim at the closed hotel pool. Mark Gable was among the rest of the workers. He decided to dive into the pool off the ladder, which the maintenance crew left. He dove in; hit the bottom headfirst and died instantly.
ISSUE
I. Does Mark Gable’s family of imbibing minor has a cause of action and can have a recovery under the Dram shop Act?
II. Does Mark Gable’s family has a cause of action and can have a recovery under Common law based on the fact that Mark Gable was the Northfield Hilton employee?
III. Does Mark Gable’s family has a cause of action and can have a recovery under premises liability because dangerous conditions occurred?
DISCUSSION
I. Does Mark Gable’s family of imbibing minor has a cause of action and can have a recovery under the Dram shop Act?
Thesis: Mark Gable’s family has no a cause of action and recovery under the Dram shop Act.
Rules: 1) M.C.L.A. 436.22 .Repealed by P.A.1998, No. 58, § 1301, Imd. Eff. April 14, 1998. 2) Laguire v. Kain 440 Mich. 367; 487 N.W. 2d 389 (1992).
Analysis: The Dram shop Act covers the field of liability arising
Get Access