Courtroom Observation Case White v. Gibbs
John Simpson
Louisiana Tech Abstract
This paper observes the court case of White v. Gibbs in which Debbie White is suing Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern under the civil provisions of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). Deborah White brought this court case to the Supreme Court in order to argue against the summary judgment filed by the defendants. A summary judgment would allow for them to avoid going to trial only if the Judge sees fit to deem that there are no disputes to the material facts of this case (West Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008). The attorneys representing Mrs. White are Amanda Babbitt and Jackson Walsh. The attorneys for the defendants are Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter. Courtroom Observation Case White v. Gibbs

The lawsuit arose from an incident where Mrs. White and her husband Bruno were having dinner at O’Malley’s Tavern. On that night there was another patron at the bar, Edward Hard, who was also Mrs. White’s ex-fiancé. During the court case we find out that Mr. Hard had shown a lot of animosity toward the White’s due to Mr. Hard and Mrs. White’s previous relationship. There was also a former altercation between Mr. White and Mr. Hard, and even though this had been resolved, Mr. Hard still showed this animosity. On this night, Mr. Hard had a bill from O’Malley’s Tavern in which he was charged for purchasing 13 alcoholic drinks. According to the record 11 of these alcoholic drinks were served in a very short period of time, and the bartender claims that Mr. Hard never showed any signs of public intoxication. According to Mrs. White there was a time when Mr. Hard had left his seat and proceeded to trip and fall over a pool cue. He got up and stumbled back to the bar and sat back down. According to Mrs. White this was not witnessed by the bartender. As Mr. and Mrs. White were leaving O’Malley’s Tavern, Mr. Hard approached Mr. White and attempted to hit him. Mr. Hard picked himself off the ground and followed Mr. and Mrs. White outside. Mr. Hard got into his van, chased the White’s car out of the parking lot, and within half a mile drove his car into the side of the White’s car killing Mr. White and injuring Mrs. White. At the scene Mr. Hard told police he had no recollection of the incident.
The court would hear the arguments of the defendants first. Attorney for the defendant, Benjamin Walton, argued that there was no evidence of actual knowledge of visual intoxication. Mr. Walton addressed the court stating that according to the statute of visual intoxication that the intoxication is visible in an obvious way to the bartender. He argued that even though the bartender of O’Malley’s Tavern, John Daniels, charged Mr. Hard for 13 alcoholic beverages, he at no time observed any knowledge of visual intoxication from Mr. Hard. Mr. Walton also included a fact from Mrs. White’s testimony that the bartender never witnessed Mr. Hard trip over a cue stick, nor did she witness any knowledge of visual intoxication.
For the defense Attorney Jordan Van Meter is arguing that there was no proximate causation evidence. He stated that Mrs. White was not the victim of intoxication but the victim of a crime created by Mr. Hard. He also talked about the fact that Mr. Hard was very upset about their break up and that there was preexisting animosity between Mr. Hard and the Whites. One of the statements that Mr. Hard made prior to the crime was “she should be my wife.” This was a statement that was made because he had intention to cause the Whites harm and had nothing to do with his intoxication.
For the plaintiff attorney Jackson Welch argues that just because the bartender, John Daniels, states he never observed Mr. Hard being intoxicated does not preclude the lawsuit from going to trial. He mentions a court case, Richter v Kirk Trucking, which held summary judgment, is based on credibility of witnesses, weight of testimony or state of mind of a patron, that it not appropriates the summary of judgment is granted ("RICHTER v. KLINK TRUCKING, INC. | Leagle.com", 1992). He went on to state that Mr. Hard was served 13 alcoholic beverages. In a short period of time 6 of the 11 that were consumed were shots of whiskey. With all of these beverages being consumed in such a short time frame, he feels that the bartender should have seen signs of intoxication. The bartender should have seen the behavior of Mr. Hard before consuming these alcoholic beverages, and when he left as signs of visual intoxication.
Next attorney Babot is arguing the summary judgment to defendant of proximate cause should not to be granted for the following reasons. It is determined that a jury could award damages to the plaintiff. Injuries to the plaintiff and death of her husband were the foreseeable consequences of service to a visibly intoxicated person. The fact that these foreseeable acts were not addressed led to the death of Mr. White and the injury to Mrs. White. As Mr. Hard told the officers on scene that he had no recollection of the incident leads to the fact that he was so intoxicated he had no understanding of what he was doing. The fact that he ran into the White’s car was not done intentionally, but from not being able to control the car. She concluded that even though there was animosity between the Whites and Mr. Ward, it was not his intent to murder anyone. Therefore the bartender served Mr. Hard to the point of intoxication, and the bartender should have foreseen the incident.
In this particular case, I would have to side with the defendants. I don’t drink myself, but if it was O’Malley’s Tavern’s fault that this incident occurred they may as well close every store down in the country that serves alcohol. I agree that if one chooses to consume alcohol, they are liable for their own actions, but it isn’t the seller’s fault they drink until they can’t control themselves anymore. It is for the consumer to decide when he or she should and shouldn’t drink. A bartender should be aware when someone may have had too much to drink, but it isn’t always that easy. During the court case, they spoke about how many drinks it takes for someone to show visual intoxication. They spoke about how it may depend upon how big the person is, their metabolism, and so forth. There are some people that can be completely coherent, even though they may be drunk. If you don’t know the person, it may be hard to tell. I don’t see just cause for O’Malley’s Tavern to be liable.
How does the biblical worldview bear on the answer to the question(s) before the court? I believe as Christians it is our own job to solve these types of issues. I find that it is best to speak directly to the person or people who you have a dispute with. Before speaking with them, it is best to pray for God’s guidance, and for you to be obedient to His guidance. I’m not saying that as Christians we should never go to court, but I do feel it should be a last resort. There is an answer to every question in the Bible. Investigate for yourself what a solution may be. Confide in loved ones about your disputes. It is also our duty as Christians to be a living witness to others. By confronting the problem at hand from a Biblical Worldview prospective may not only resolve the issue, but show that person the true meaning of the Bible. The courts are there to protect our rights but God is there to protect our soul.

.

References
National Conference of State Legislatures (2014). Dram Shop Liability State Statutes. Retrieved 2014, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/dram-shop-liability-state-statutes.aspx
RICHTER v. KLINK TRUCKING, INC. | Leagle.com. (1992, December 15). Retrieved 2014, from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1992822599NE2d223_1818
West Encyclopedia of American Law (2008). Summary Judgment legal definition of Summary Judgment. Summary Judgment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. Retrieved 2014, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.co