White V. Gibbs Case Study
Abstract In the case of White v. Gibbs, the plaintiff, Mrs. Debbie White, sued O’Malley’s Tavern alongside Patrick Gibbs. Gibbs served as bartender at the tavern during the night in question. Mrs. White seeks settlement under the state of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act. Under the Dram Shop Act, a bartender assumes liability to any persons injured who were served alcohol while exhibiting obvious signs of intoxication (Todd, 1986). Since the two parties reside in different states, the case was brought to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The defendants, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, sought summary judgment on their behalf. Mrs. White’s rebuttal was that the summary judgment should
…show more content…
not be granted to the defendants, and that the case should continue on to trial by jury
Courtroom Observation: White v. Gibbs
Mrs. Wright’s lawsuit against the defendants, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, manifested after the death of her husband. Mr. White was killed while driving, by a drunk driver, and former paramour of Mrs. White, Mr. Edward Hard. On the night in question, Mr. and Mrs. White were having dinner at O’Malley’s Tavern. The same night, Mr. Edward Hard was also present at O’Malley’s Tavern. He was observed consuming copious amounts of alcohol, which were served by the bartender, Patrick Gibbs. Witnesses claim that Mr. Hard was seen falling from his barstool, and attempting to strike Mr. White in the time leading up to the incident. Upon leaving O’Malley’s Tavern, the Whites were followed out into the parking lot by Mr. Hard. The Whites entered their vehicle and proceeded to leave the establishment but were followed by a Mr. Hard who was driving a van. Mr. Hard followed the Whites for nearly half of a mile before driving into the side of the White’s vehicle, killing Mr. White and injuring Mrs. White.
In order to recover any damages from the defendants, Mrs. White must prove that O’Malley’s Tavern via Patrick Gibbs were aware that Mr. Hard was visibly intoxicated, and that the bartender continued to serve him alcoholic beverages. Secondly, in this case, Mrs. White must prove that O’Malley’s Tavern was the actual cause of the accident and Mr. White’s death.
The defendant’s attorneys, Mr. Walton and Mr. Vanmeter, argued that Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern should not be held liable for the damages suffered to Mrs. White. This argument is based on the lack of sufficient evidence that Mr. Hard was visibly intoxicated. The justification for the defense’s argument is that under the Dram Shop Act a bartender cannot be held liable for any actions of a patron if that patron was not exhibiting any visible or outward signs of intoxication (Todd).
The defense referenced cases that were similar in nature to this case in question that fall under the Dram Shop Act in order to reinforce their argument. The defense also called into account the eyewitness testimony to the plaintiff, Mrs. White. In her testimony, Mrs. White stated that she observed Mr. Hard taking several shots of whiskey while sitting at the bar, but that he did not appear to be visibly intoxicated.
Further, the defense argued that Mr. Hard had premeditated intent to cause harm to Mr. White. The defense also claims that Mr. Hard had shown outward signs of anger and aggression at the conclusion of the relationship between him and Mrs. White. The defense cited that after their relationship ended, Mr. Hard began to drink heavily, was charged with an operating while intoxicated (OWI). The defense also cited that on a previous occasion, Mr. Hard had also attempted to fight Mr. White.
Taking into account the previous facts, the defense theorized that Mr.
Hard had a personal vendetta against Mr. White and had premeditated intent to cause harm to Mr. White. The defense’s vendetta theory offers that the Mr. Hard had intent to harm Mr. White regardless of intoxication, and that his behavior, up to the night in question, was indicative of his intent to cause Mr. White harm. In conclusion, the defense’s argued that Mr. Hard’s intoxication was not the proximate cause of Mr. White’s death because Mr. Hard had a premeditated malicious intent to harm Mr. White based on past events and actions.
The plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Babbitt, argued that the defense should not be granted summary judgment and that the case should move to a trial. The plaintiff’s counsel argues that it would have been impossible for the bartender to not recognize that Mr. Hard was visibly intoxicated. They also argue that Mr. Hard’s intoxication induced the reckless behavior that led to the death of Mr. …show more content…
White.
In resolution, Mr. Hard’s level of intoxication was enough to substantiate proximate cause of the death of Mr. White. That factual evidence shows that Mr. Hard had six drinks; one beer and five shots of whiskey, in roughly half an hour and another seven drinks prior to that. This alcohol count totals to thirteen drinks over the span of five hours. Eye witness statements report that Mr. Hard had fallen from his barstool, and had attempted to punch Mr. White prior to leaving the tavern. The police report stated that Mr. Hard’s blood-alcohol level after the accident was 2.0, which was nearly two times the legal limit. Taking these facts into account, the plaintiff’s counsel concludes that it would have been impossible for the bartender not to have been aware of or witnessed visible signs of intoxication by Mr. Hard.
Discussion
After considering the facts of the case presented by both sides, I find myself in agreement with the plaintiff’s counsel. I agree that the defense should not be granted the courtesy of summary judgment, and that the case should proceed to trial by jury, in which the people of the court will decide the settlement for the damages suffered to Mrs. White. This case is an example of negligence on two parties.
It was negligent for the bartender, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, to continue serving alcoholic beverages to Mr. Hard. An experienced bartender should use better judgment than to serve one person five shots of whiskey and a beer in a thirty minute time span. A bartender should assume that consuming that many drinks in such a short amount of time would be enough to inebriate a person beyond the capacity to safely operating a vehicle.
It was also negligent for Mr. Hard to operate his vehicle in such an inebriated state, and to attempt to pursue the Whites in such a state. However, the full blame for the death of Mr. White cannot be levied upon one individual who at the time, it could be said, was beyond cognition, but can be blamed on the two parties who were both negligent in regards to the situation.
The Bible offers a great foundation in which we, as Christians, can build a worldview that supports all aspects of our lives.
A biblical worldview bears greatly into the circumstances of this particular case. The entire case of White v. Gibbs revolves around alcohol, and the responsibility that comes with consuming it. Personally, I am not opposed to drinking alcohol. However, I do believe that the decision to drink alcohol comes with an even greater responsibility. It is up to the person who consumes the alcohol to realize when they are becoming inebriated to a point in which their ability to make sound decisions is being impaired. There are various verses in the Bible that do not condemn drinking in moderation, but caution against being drunk, such as, “and do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit”, (Ephesians 5:18 ESV) and “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain” (1 Timothy 3:8 ESV). In my opinion, Mr. Hard, Patrick Gibbs, and O’Malley’s Tavern are all equally at fault in this case. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern made the decision to continue serving Mr. Hard after he had been drinking heavily. Mr. Hard chose to continue drinking and to pursue the Whites out into the parking lot. All of the combined actions ultimately and unfortunately rendered the results presented in this case and the death of Mr.
White.
Reference
19 Ind. L. Rev. 417 (1986) Dram Shop Liability in Indiana: Analysis of Ashlock v. Norris and the New Civil Statute; Todd, Teresa L.; Yosha, Louis Budd
not be granted to the defendants, and that the case should continue on to trial by jury
Courtroom Observation: White v. Gibbs
Mrs. Wright’s lawsuit against the defendants, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, manifested after the death of her husband. Mr. White was killed while driving, by a drunk driver, and former paramour of Mrs. White, Mr. Edward Hard. On the night in question, Mr. and Mrs. White were having dinner at O’Malley’s Tavern. The same night, Mr. Edward Hard was also present at O’Malley’s Tavern. He was observed consuming copious amounts of alcohol, which were served by the bartender, Patrick Gibbs. Witnesses claim that Mr. Hard was seen falling from his barstool, and attempting to strike Mr. White in the time leading up to the incident. Upon leaving O’Malley’s Tavern, the Whites were followed out into the parking lot by Mr. Hard. The Whites entered their vehicle and proceeded to leave the establishment but were followed by a Mr. Hard who was driving a van. Mr. Hard followed the Whites for nearly half of a mile before driving into the side of the White’s vehicle, killing Mr. White and injuring Mrs. White.
In order to recover any damages from the defendants, Mrs. White must prove that O’Malley’s Tavern via Patrick Gibbs were aware that Mr. Hard was visibly intoxicated, and that the bartender continued to serve him alcoholic beverages. Secondly, in this case, Mrs. White must prove that O’Malley’s Tavern was the actual cause of the accident and Mr. White’s death.
The defendant’s attorneys, Mr. Walton and Mr. Vanmeter, argued that Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern should not be held liable for the damages suffered to Mrs. White. This argument is based on the lack of sufficient evidence that Mr. Hard was visibly intoxicated. The justification for the defense’s argument is that under the Dram Shop Act a bartender cannot be held liable for any actions of a patron if that patron was not exhibiting any visible or outward signs of intoxication (Todd).
The defense referenced cases that were similar in nature to this case in question that fall under the Dram Shop Act in order to reinforce their argument. The defense also called into account the eyewitness testimony to the plaintiff, Mrs. White. In her testimony, Mrs. White stated that she observed Mr. Hard taking several shots of whiskey while sitting at the bar, but that he did not appear to be visibly intoxicated.
Further, the defense argued that Mr. Hard had premeditated intent to cause harm to Mr. White. The defense also claims that Mr. Hard had shown outward signs of anger and aggression at the conclusion of the relationship between him and Mrs. White. The defense cited that after their relationship ended, Mr. Hard began to drink heavily, was charged with an operating while intoxicated (OWI). The defense also cited that on a previous occasion, Mr. Hard had also attempted to fight Mr. White.
Taking into account the previous facts, the defense theorized that Mr.
Hard had a personal vendetta against Mr. White and had premeditated intent to cause harm to Mr. White. The defense’s vendetta theory offers that the Mr. Hard had intent to harm Mr. White regardless of intoxication, and that his behavior, up to the night in question, was indicative of his intent to cause Mr. White harm. In conclusion, the defense’s argued that Mr. Hard’s intoxication was not the proximate cause of Mr. White’s death because Mr. Hard had a premeditated malicious intent to harm Mr. White based on past events and actions.
The plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Babbitt, argued that the defense should not be granted summary judgment and that the case should move to a trial. The plaintiff’s counsel argues that it would have been impossible for the bartender to not recognize that Mr. Hard was visibly intoxicated. They also argue that Mr. Hard’s intoxication induced the reckless behavior that led to the death of Mr. …show more content…
White.
In resolution, Mr. Hard’s level of intoxication was enough to substantiate proximate cause of the death of Mr. White. That factual evidence shows that Mr. Hard had six drinks; one beer and five shots of whiskey, in roughly half an hour and another seven drinks prior to that. This alcohol count totals to thirteen drinks over the span of five hours. Eye witness statements report that Mr. Hard had fallen from his barstool, and had attempted to punch Mr. White prior to leaving the tavern. The police report stated that Mr. Hard’s blood-alcohol level after the accident was 2.0, which was nearly two times the legal limit. Taking these facts into account, the plaintiff’s counsel concludes that it would have been impossible for the bartender not to have been aware of or witnessed visible signs of intoxication by Mr. Hard.
Discussion
After considering the facts of the case presented by both sides, I find myself in agreement with the plaintiff’s counsel. I agree that the defense should not be granted the courtesy of summary judgment, and that the case should proceed to trial by jury, in which the people of the court will decide the settlement for the damages suffered to Mrs. White. This case is an example of negligence on two parties.
It was negligent for the bartender, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, to continue serving alcoholic beverages to Mr. Hard. An experienced bartender should use better judgment than to serve one person five shots of whiskey and a beer in a thirty minute time span. A bartender should assume that consuming that many drinks in such a short amount of time would be enough to inebriate a person beyond the capacity to safely operating a vehicle.
It was also negligent for Mr. Hard to operate his vehicle in such an inebriated state, and to attempt to pursue the Whites in such a state. However, the full blame for the death of Mr. White cannot be levied upon one individual who at the time, it could be said, was beyond cognition, but can be blamed on the two parties who were both negligent in regards to the situation.
The Bible offers a great foundation in which we, as Christians, can build a worldview that supports all aspects of our lives.
A biblical worldview bears greatly into the circumstances of this particular case. The entire case of White v. Gibbs revolves around alcohol, and the responsibility that comes with consuming it. Personally, I am not opposed to drinking alcohol. However, I do believe that the decision to drink alcohol comes with an even greater responsibility. It is up to the person who consumes the alcohol to realize when they are becoming inebriated to a point in which their ability to make sound decisions is being impaired. There are various verses in the Bible that do not condemn drinking in moderation, but caution against being drunk, such as, “and do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit”, (Ephesians 5:18 ESV) and “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain” (1 Timothy 3:8 ESV). In my opinion, Mr. Hard, Patrick Gibbs, and O’Malley’s Tavern are all equally at fault in this case. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern made the decision to continue serving Mr. Hard after he had been drinking heavily. Mr. Hard chose to continue drinking and to pursue the Whites out into the parking lot. All of the combined actions ultimately and unfortunately rendered the results presented in this case and the death of Mr.
White.
Reference
19 Ind. L. Rev. 417 (1986) Dram Shop Liability in Indiana: Analysis of Ashlock v. Norris and the New Civil Statute; Todd, Teresa L.; Yosha, Louis Budd