CREAC OF AMANDA LOWELL’S CASE

CONCLUSION:

Ms. Lowell is not likely to know that Monica would be driving after she left he party.

RULE:

A person of unlawful drinking age, with knowledge that the minor will soon drive a motor vehicle, may be held liable for damages caused by the minor to a third party, when proximate cause of such damage is the ‘furnishing’. Further, ‘Reasonable care’ is defined as the degree of care that an ordinarily prudent and competent person should exercise under similar circumstances, under § 51-1-40 (m).

EXPLANATION:

Similarly, In Riley the court held, 436 S.E.2d 659 (Ga. 1993) that if one in exercise of reasonable care should have known that the recipient of alcohol was minor and would be driving …show more content…
The house was located in 10 acres of land and closet neighbor is about a half mile away and the nearest gas station is around 2 miles and grocery store 3 or 4 miles away and the place where the Monica lived is 10 miles away. These facts prove that her house is not reachable by foot and is located at an isolated place, where one has to reach by vehicle only.

It is in the evidence that Monica, the neighbor of Ginger was introduced and inducted as an employee with Amada Lowel and the host Amada has not noticed as how Monica reached the party. Amada also has not noticed Monica’s departure of Monica. She stated that after the first “Hellos”, Amada did not even speak to Monica. She expects that the Monica also would follow the Ginger who stayed around to help Amada till end of the party. It is also proved that Amada informed everyone that she informed all that she would call a cab or provide accommodation for those who drunk or drive them to their respective houses, by herself. At the said gathering, Monica drank some beer and later drove away the car resulting into driving into Mr. Sandleman’s home, causing substantial damage, besides injuring herself very badly. Now, Mr. Sandleman sued Monica Swanson and also Amanda Lowell, …show more content…
She is minor by that date by few months. The contention of Amanda Lowell that Monica had written as 20 years in her application and that she verified her date of birth only after the incident only has no relevance. The Supreme court of Georgia in Terry Dale Riley v. H & H OPERATONS, INC., 263 Ga. 652, 436 S.E.2d 659 (Ga. 1993) explained OCCAS 3-3-23, prohibiting the sale of alcohol to those under 21, and subsection imposing duty upon the seller of alcohol to request and see proper identification, where a “reasonable or prudent person could reasonably be in doubt as to whether or not the person to whom an alcoholic beverage is to be sold, is actually 21 years of age or older. But it is to be seen as to whether the Amada knowingly furnished alcoholic beverages to a person of unlawful drinking age, with knowledge that the minor will soon drive a motor vehicle, to make her liable for damages caused by her to a third party, and whether the proximate cause of such damage is the ‘furnishing’. In this case, the Plaintiffs failed to establish this aspect that Amada knowingly furnished alcoholic beverages. Here it is neither pleaded nor established that Amada had either served or furnished the drinks to Monika with knowledge that Monika would soon drive a motor vehicle. The Supreme Court in SUGARLOAF CAFÉ, INC v. WILLBANKS et al. 279 Ga 255, 612 S.E.2d.279 (Ga. 2005), held that in the