Then, write a 5-7-page review of your observation of this courtroom scene.
In your review, you should briefly articulate the facts of the case being heard by the court and the arguments of the various parties.
Then, you should answer the following questions in your paper:
1. Did you agree with the defendants (Patrick Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern) or the plaintiff (Mrs. White)? Why?
2. How does the biblical worldview bear on the answer to the question(s) before the court?
3. According to the biblical worldview, do you think this is a good method for resolving disputes? Why or why not? If not, what
method would you propose in its place and why?
Instructions* CASE DETAILS This series of videos shows oral argument in the case of White v. Gibbs in which Mrs. Debbie White has sued Patrick Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern under the civil provisions of Indiana's Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code
7.1-5-10-15.5. Because the parties reside in two different states, the suit was brought in diversity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, but will be decided under Indiana state law.
The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment, seeking judgment as a matter of law in their favor.
Mrs. White has responded that summary judgment should not be granted, and that the case should go to trial. Because the argument is being heard on the defendants' motion, the defendants' counsel argues first.
The lawsuit arose from an incident when Mrs.
White and her husband, Bruno, were having dinner at O'Malley's Tavern. Mr. Edward Hard, another patron at the tavern that evening and a former paramour of Mrs. White, had a large amount to drink.
When Mrs. White and her husband left the tavern, Mr. Hard stumbled out behind them, got in his van, chased the Whites' car
out of the parking lot, and, within approximately half a mile, drove into the side of the Whites' car, killing Mr. White and
injuring Mrs. White.
You will hear additional facts as they are argued on the various points of law. Under Indiana law, in order for Mrs. White to
recover damages from the defendants, she must prove: -
The tavern (through Mr. Gibbs, the bartender) had actual knowledge that Mr. Hard was visibly intoxicated when serving Mr. Hard
his final drink. - The tavern serving Mr. Hard was the proximate cause of the crash and Mr. White's death.
This chain of causation can be broken (interrupted) by a criminal act on the part of Mr. Hard.
In a real-life trial court, this type of argument would be presented to one trial court judge. Here, a panel of judges hears the
case as it was argued in a competition.
As such, this is the type of panel argument you might see for such a case on appeal. For those of you who might be thinking about law school, these were students in the spring semester of their first year, and were the top contenders in their first-year tournament.
1. Did you agree with the defendants (Patrick Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern) or the plaintiff (Mrs. White)? Why?
2. How does the biblical worldview bear on the answer to the question(s) before the court?
3. According to the biblical worldview, do you think this is a good method for resolving disputes?
Why or why not? If not, what method would you propose in its place and why? "