Sandy Hearst Case Study

The trial of Terry Vickers v. Sandy Hearst. Sandy Hearst claims that Dana Ivy had been drunk, which ended up causing a car collision on the morning of December 17. the defendant states that Dana Ivy was not drunk, as well as that alcohol was not the cause of this accident that took place at the intersection of Justice and Eagle street. This accident caused injuries to Terry Vickers. Terry Vickers wants to sue Sandy Hearst for pain, suffering, in addition lost wages, Sandy Hearst is the host of a party that took place on the night of December 16, when one host a party, it is their duty to be sure that those who consume alcohol are not over consuming, plus this did not cause an accident that causes injuries to others. Dana Ivy will testify that she was not drunk and that the cause of the accident was because she was tired not drunk, Sandy Hearst will testify that she did not over serve or force drinks on anyone at the party. The plaintiff will try to adverse these statements, but their
I never saw Dana acts out of the ordinary at my party, all I saw was “Dana just talked also acted like anyone else would at this kind of function”. This means that Dana Ivy was acting normal and not like she was drunk at the party, with the thirty plus people at the party. This all means that there was no way you could say that Dana Ivy was clearly drunk because she was acting like the thirty plus people at the party. No one knows exactly if Sandy Hearst knew that Dana Ivy drove to the party. Dana Ivy and Lee Porter arrived together at the party. Lee Porter states “ we arrived at eleven o'clock but it took us a while to find a place to park”. This means that either Lee Porter or Dana Ivy could have driven to the party there was no way to know who drove. This all means that there was no way for Sandy Hearst to know who drove to the party so she thought that Lee Porter would leave with Dana