Ms. Gonzales 's Injuries Under The Dram Shop Act

To state a claim for NIED, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he was located near the scene of the accident; (2) he sensorily and contemporaneously observed the accident; and (3) he and the victim are closely related. Sinn v. Burd, 404 A.2d 672, at 685 (Pa. 1979). There can be little dispute that Arnett was near the scene of the accident. However, whether Arnett sensorily and contemporaneously observed the incident and whether Nolan and Arnett are closely related are in question. This memorandum will address all three

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.

Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities were 1,028 in 2008 for the state of California (Century Council). Of those deaths, 68% of the drivers were considered “Hardcore Drunk Drivers”; drivers who had a BAC level of 0.15+ (Century Council). Unfortunately, the drivers who got behind the wheel of those vehicles now have to deal with the fact that they slaughtered a person(s), because they made the choice to drive their car when they knew they had consumed alcohol.

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

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

Drunk Driving Wrecks: Making sure that the drunk driver is held responsible for his actions according to the laws of Texas.

Driving under the influence of alcohol has been a major issue in America, spanning all the way back to more than 50 years ago (Raymond). Many accidents are caused from drinking and driving yearly, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries involving innocent people. When alcohol is mixed with driving a motor vehicle, there are no limits to who may be at risk. This means that drunk driving has been harming, hurting and killing many innocent people in America. Over the years I have witnessed many aftermaths of drunk driving accidents and have heard of multiple accidents resulting from alcohol use involving people I know, and people I do not know. Sometimes, in accidents like these, all parties involved may walk away from the accident with

The deposition of Dr. Joe Gonzales occurred on March 16, 2016. Dr. Gonzalez was retained by Plaintiff as an expert in this case and was requested to prepare a life care plan for Plaintiff’s future medical care needs. Dr. Gonzales has served as a life care planner since 1988, when he received is license to practice medicine. He became a certified life care planner in 2006. He is a medical doctor in San Antonio who is board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine, and occupational and environmental medicine. Half of his work consists of treating patients and the other half consists of preparing life care plans related to litigation. When he does life care planning work, 85-90% of that work is on behalf of the plaintiffs in the respective litigation. He sees on average 20-50 patients a week in his medical practice. He has not practiced in a hospital in at least 10 years.

According to court records, thirteen years ago, Carlos Bermudez, lost his wife in a terrible head-on accident when an intoxicated Miccosukee tribal member crossed the centerline of the Tamiami Trail and crashed directly into their

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

Id. ¶ 40, 873 N.W.2d at 696. See United States v. Aponte, 619 F.3d 799, 800, 807 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that the “knowing” element was not supported by sufficient evidence to show that the occupants knew drugs were in the third party owned vehicle; there was no evidence presented linking the defendants to the drugs; and the prosecution cited no authority to support other rationale for inferring knowledge). See also Utah v. Salas, 820 P.2d 1386, 1387-88 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (holding that the “knowing” element was not supported by sufficient evidence to prove the defendant knew about the drugs found under the seat of another occupant).

In the case Shannon v. Wilson, Plaintiff, Marlan Dale Shannon, sued defendants, L.K. Wilson and Elizabeth Ashworth, for the wrongful death of his son, Charles Shannon. The plaintiff’s son and his friend, Jarred Sparks, were killed in an automobile accident due to intoxicated driving. Jarred was found in the driver’s seat, and Charles was found in the passenger seat. The two minors were found dead and inebriated with blood alcohol levels of .10% and .07%, respectively. Before the incident, David Farmer, also under aged, took them through a drive-through liquor store and was sold beer and liquor without proper verification of age; he left the vehicle at a different location while the two minors remained in the vehicle and consumed the alcohol

Not every DWI (driving while intoxicated) case ends the same, some have different verdicts in the courtroom. The Ethan Couch case is a great example of why punishing drunk drivers should be more enforced and not so lenient. The teen from Texas was driving drunk with two other passengers in his pickup truck on June of 2013, when he hit and killed four people. Ethan Couch was tried as a juvenile and charged with four counts of Intoxication Manslaughter, but was only sentenced to ten years of probation. His lawyers argued that it was due to “affluenza”, which means that he came from a wealthy family and it prevented him from understanding what was right from wrong, so he was not held accountable for his actions. The judge who took on this case

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