Chad Chambers
BUSI301
Professor Martin
September 25, 2011
Courtroom Observation The court case White vs. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern took place in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Indiana. The defendants, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern are pursuing a summary judgment. Summary judgment is the resolution of a case without trial if the judge deems that there are no disputes to the material facts of the case. The Defendants in this case claim there is no evidence to support that bartender John Daniels saw any visual signs of intoxication from Edward Hart and only contextual knowledge can be proven. If the defendants can prove there were in fact no visible signs of intoxication then they will not be subjected to any legal wrong doing based off the 1988 Indiana Supreme Court Case which stated that contextual knowledge alone will not suffice. The plaintiff, Deborah White, is requesting that the court denies the defendant’s request for summary judgment. The plaintiff claims to have sufficient evidence which will prove bartender John Daniels did see visible signs of intoxication from Edward Hart. Edward Hart had consumed 11 drinks within a two hour span while at the Tavern. Regardless of body type, shape or size that amount of Alcohol consumed by a single individual can reasonably infer that he had shown visible signs of intoxication. Edward Hart had been observed falling off of his stool as well as tripping over a pool stick by another patron in the bar. Upon leaving the bar Edward Hart had hit multiple parked cars in the parking lot. Mr. Hart displayed signs of his inability to operate a motor vehicle by swerving all over the road, driving on the opposite side of the roadway, taking out a mailbox, and eventually crashing into plaintiff, Deborah Whites car injuring her and killing her husband. His BAC (blood alcohol content) was .20 where the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle in the state of Indiana is .08. Therefore, Edward Hart was legally considered to be intoxicated. The defense argues that although Mr. Hart was unable to operate his vehicle and had consumed more than a reasonable 'amount of alcohol throughout his tenure at O’Malley’s Tavern his personal demeanor displayed in the bar lacks that of visible intoxication. Mr. Hart, although falling off of his stool and tripping over a pool stick was still willing and able to pick himself up onto his feet from a sitting position with no help other than from himself. The defense uses prior case law from 1988 claiming that constructive knowledge alone is insufficient evidence and that visible intoxication must be present. Constructive knowledge is the general assumption that a person is intoxicated based off of the amount of alcohol consumed, whereas visible intoxication are signs shown by a person such as slurred speech, slight gait to their posture etc. A waitress at the Tavern stated that Mr. Hart was more talkative than his usual self and was seen putting his arm around another patron telling him I love you. Again, prior case law from the Indiana Supreme Court case in 1999 states that mere talkativeness in not sufficient enough to prove visible means of intoxication. Based on the facts presented to the court there appears to be insufficient evidence to grant the defense a summary judgment. Edward Hart was clearly intoxicated and signs of visible intoxication were present. Falling off of a bar stool is not the typical act of a sober cognoscente individual. Within two hours Mr. Hart managed to consume eleven alcoholic beverages, was seen drinking out of a pitcher, attempted to assault the plaintiffs husband and displayed signs of struggle when walking to his vehicle. The bartender, John Daniels, told the defense that he personally did not see signs of visible intoxication when he served Edward Hart his last drink at 7:43 P.M. Shortly after Mr. Hart crashed his vehicle, the reporting officer interviewed John Daniels at which point he told the officer Edward Hart appeared drunk when he left. Edward Hart left O’Malley’s Tavern at 7:55 P.M., five minutes after consuming his last drink. It is not possible for Mr. Daniels to have changed his opinion about Mr. Hart’s personal demeanor in a five minute span. Edward Hart chose to drink and then proceeded to operate his vehicle knowing himself he was drunk. In the police report the officer asked Mr. Hart how he felt and he replied, “Drunk”. After hitting multiple parked cars and unable to drive in a single lane we begin to ask ourselves why wouldn’t Hart have pulled over knowing he is a threat to society? Edward Hart was intoxicated and determined to follow the plaintiff to attempt harm to the plaintiff’s husband. The intent to cause harm to others is a legal statute when operating a motor vehicle while legally impaired. When the plaintiff turned in front of Mr. Hart as he was driving on the wrong side of the road he made not a single attempt to slow down which led the lethal broadsided crash taking the life of an innocent human being. Edward Hart was depressed, angry and intoxicated. The bartender John Daniels was aware of the mental state of Mr. Hart as he continued to serve him more and more alcohol. If Edward Hart did not display signs of visible intoxication he should have been aware of his inability to drive and should have called for a taxi. John Daniels’ statements were contradicting of each other and never gave the same answer twice. In my opinion that is a sign of personal guilt. Summary judgment should not be granted and this case should be taken before a jury. The biblical worldview on the question before the court is that O’Malley’s Tavern his responsible for the actions that took place that evening. The bartender knew how much alcohol he had been serving the defendant as well as knowing he was intoxicated. Knowing such information at no point should they have allowed Edward Hart to leave the bar in his own vehicle. Edward Hart was depressed, angry, and drunk and at no time was he able to operate a motor vehicle. God punishes those who sin and in my opinion the events that led up to the death of an innocent man was the result of the irresponsibility of the bartender John Daniels. God created everything that exists and everything is held together by Him. When mankind chose to rebel against God in the Garden of Eden sin and death had entered the world. Unfortunately this is something we now have to live with for all of eternity. However, the judicial system was created by God for those who choose to sin and they must be judged. The biblical worldview is an excellent method for resolving disputes. Jesus Christ is the only way to have eternal life or to be reunited with god. Disputes either civilly or legally are the mere acts of sin that has been brought about into mankind. For many people their worldview is simply something they have absorbed from their surrounding cultural influences. Most people have never thought about what they believe nor could they ever defend it (Wayne). The world’s approach to dispute resolution is merely based on a culture of unbelief, manipulation, struggles for power, unforgiveness, and refusal to form a relationship with God over materialistic things. Using the biblical worldview is a great opportunity for the Christian world to help spread the word of God and remind people where they come from and who their creator is. It is good practice for law to remind us to remain consistent with God’s view and that we must always forgive. Colossians 3:13 refers to that act of forgiveness: “Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive”. We cannot profess to be Christians if we ourselves advise the people we help to act no different than the non-Christian opposing party. Matthew states in 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother”. Excluding god from punishment is a sin in itself because it is not our job to judge others nor is it God’s way. We as Christians are called upon to be peacemakers and imitators of Christ but in order for that to be possible we must shift our focus away from ourselves to God and his power. We must remember that God does not ask us to acknowledge him only on Sunday but at all times and in all venues. We must embrace this view and apply it to our everyday lives. If we adopt God’s plan when resolving disputes we will have the opportunity to encourage reconciliation between others. When we resolve disputes Biblically and faithfully we are not only giving testimony to God’s plan of redemption and reconciliation but we are helping restore relationships between God, glorify is almighty power. As followers of Christ we are called to faithfully apply God's plan for resolving conflict. This witness should occur in our lives, and our relationships, ultimately giving glory to God (Schlachter, 2006). “Our desire for you is Christ will live in your hearts by faith, and that you will come to know and understand with us the height and the depth and the width and the length of the Love of Christ. It surpasses all human knowledge. We pray that you can be filled with the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:18-19).

References
Wayne, I. (n.d.). Biblical worldview. Retrieved from http://www.christianworldview.net/
Resolving conflict. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.openbible.info/topics/resolving_conflict
Schlachter, D. D. (2006). God, conflict, and zealous advocacy. Retrieved from http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.nuIWL7MOJtE/b.5368063/k.34FE/God_Conflict_and_Zealous_Advocacy.htm