Happy Hour Sports Bar
The Parties
The two parties within this case are as follows:
The Happy Hour Sports Bar, bar owner and employee Bertha
Young male bar patron
The Issues
The facts of this case may give rise to an action for damages on the basis of excessive force causing injury. This case may also include a claim of negligence on the part of the employee Bertha, since she threw the patron in the direction where the head injury would not likely have occurred. Also, the case deals with the rights of an occupier of property to eject a person from property, and the application of force in the exercise of rights.
The main issues found in this case are:
What is the status of the drunken patron once he was requested to leave the premises in the first instance?
Did Bertha commit a tort by taking the patron and ejecting him from the premises?
Did the patron commit a trespass by returning?
Did Bertha’s actions on the second occasion constitute a tort?
The Arguments & Legal Reasoning
Happy Hour Sports Bar, argument:
As an employee and bartended, Bertha had the right to deny the patron a beverage, and offered to contact a cab service for him. The young patron became demanding and aggressive; Bertha asked the patron to leave and when he wouldn’t, she used what she believed as the right amount of force and removed the patron from the bar because the patron was committing the Tort law of nuisance.
When the patron returned to the bar, he was committing the Tort of trespassing, after Bertha requested him to leave the bar the first time but he returned. As a reaction to the trespassing, Bertha again used what she believed to be the right amount of force to remove the patron. When the patron refused to leave he attempted to hit Bertha, therefore committed the Tort of assault upon her.
The young male bar patron, argument:
The young patron had entered on the premises lawfully.
When Bertha placed the patron in the ‘head-lock and arm-lock’, she committed the Tort of false
The two parties within this case are as follows:
The Happy Hour Sports Bar, bar owner and employee Bertha
Young male bar patron
The Issues
The facts of this case may give rise to an action for damages on the basis of excessive force causing injury. This case may also include a claim of negligence on the part of the employee Bertha, since she threw the patron in the direction where the head injury would not likely have occurred. Also, the case deals with the rights of an occupier of property to eject a person from property, and the application of force in the exercise of rights.
The main issues found in this case are:
What is the status of the drunken patron once he was requested to leave the premises in the first instance?
Did Bertha commit a tort by taking the patron and ejecting him from the premises?
Did the patron commit a trespass by returning?
Did Bertha’s actions on the second occasion constitute a tort?
The Arguments & Legal Reasoning
Happy Hour Sports Bar, argument:
As an employee and bartended, Bertha had the right to deny the patron a beverage, and offered to contact a cab service for him. The young patron became demanding and aggressive; Bertha asked the patron to leave and when he wouldn’t, she used what she believed as the right amount of force and removed the patron from the bar because the patron was committing the Tort law of nuisance.
When the patron returned to the bar, he was committing the Tort of trespassing, after Bertha requested him to leave the bar the first time but he returned. As a reaction to the trespassing, Bertha again used what she believed to be the right amount of force to remove the patron. When the patron refused to leave he attempted to hit Bertha, therefore committed the Tort of assault upon her.
The young male bar patron, argument:
The young patron had entered on the premises lawfully.
When Bertha placed the patron in the ‘head-lock and arm-lock’, she committed the Tort of false