Question

Without trying to decide who will win if Veronica sues Fun Products, Inc. and the Milton Hotel chain, analyze the following. Who are the parties to this lawsuit, and what are they called (trial level and appeal level)? What types of law will Veronica's lawsuit involve? What type of remedies is she seeking, and are these remedies (or some of them) appropriate to this type of case? What legal sources will the court consider in deciding if Fun Products, Inc. and the Milton Hotel chain (or either of them) are liable for Veronica's injuries? What types of liability does Larry face as a result of this scenario? What burden of proof will apply? What issues in this dispute would a jury decide (if the case went to trial), and what issues would a judge decide? What if the person(s) with liability here doesn't have the money to pay Veronica's damages?

Answer 1

B
which claims are filed in which court(s) a nd who is responsible for pursuing theclaims
Veronica will be the plaintiff and is suing the defendents (Fun Products Inc and MiltonHotels). She will file a complaint that the businesses were negligent in serving alcohol andcaused physical damages and even mental distress. thiis will be a civil lawsuit associal hots and business owners are liable in company parties. Veronica is responsible for proving damages & Veronica can sue for punitive and special damages. Punitive damages arethose to punish the company and special damages are made to cover expenses

Should the company have undertaken additional efforts to prevent drinking and driking. If so, what could they have done Separately, but related to this "question,would the dram shop law apply to the company under these circumstances 
-without more information I dont think" we can determine if the dram shop laws apply. the deal with selling li/uor to visibl into$icated individuals. In the scenario it onl sas that arr had 0a bit too much to drinking which could have been just enough to impair his refleces and not enough to be visible to the person serving thedrin"s. If there were witnesses to arr being visible into$icated prior to being served more drin"s# then it ma appl. I thin" one thing to company could have done is have a cash bar. People seem to drin" morewhen its free2 In addition to limiting the amount of drin"s served ,&, limit the amount of timethe bar is open# and no last calls. ast calls# can cause some people to order a few drin"s at atime and drin" more in a shorter period of time. 3f course# this ma not have stopped theushs from having too much to drin".!he compan could have ta"en additional efforts. !he could have ta"en everone "es andunless the pass a breathalser# the would not be allowed to receive their "es bac" whichwould result in them having to ta"e the free ta$i home.In regards to the dram shop law# the law states that this is for businesses that sell li/uor. Fun products is not in the business of selling alcoholic beverages. However Milton Hotel doeshave a bar and is a host who serves li/uor. I thin" that the dram shop law would appl tothem because the are in this tpe of business. !his is also dependent on where the live asonl 45 states adhere to this law. I do not thin" that dram shop law to come into pla in this scenario. For one reason it would be difficult to proved that he was being noticeabl drun" to the point that it would impair hisdriving. Second the would half to prove that the li/uor that he consumed that was server there was the cause of the accident. It is hard to sa if the compan should of ta"en anfurther precautions to prevent him from driving based on his level of into$ication and how hewas acting. 6nder an normal circumstances a complimentar ta$i service should be morethan enough to prevent drun" driving. arr is an adult and should "now when he has toomuch to drin" to drive. I agree that providing a complimentar ta$i service should be more than enough of an efforton behalf of the compan# 7evin. !his is a usual and customar practice for these tpes of situations# and as ou said# arr is an adult and show behave as such. However# an personor entit is sub1ect to lawsuits and Fun Products# Inc. could have considered other alternativesto combat their liabilit. I would tend to thin" that providing a ma$imum allowable amount of 0drin" tic"ets0 to each guest# such as two per person ma reduce their liabilit# but theres

nothing to sa that nondrin"ers wouldnt give their 0drin" tic"ets0 to others to consumemore. I would thin" another alternative would be for Fun Products to not provide an alcohol#which would ultimatel leave the consumption and purchase of alcohol up to the gueststhemselves. However# this ma not completel protect Fun Products from all liabilit. !he compan provided the a free option to arr and he decided to drive drun". inda couldhave stepped in but she didnt. 6ltimatel arr is responsible for his actions and not thecompanies that hosted the part. I dont believe that Veronica should be able to sue the the compan or the hotel. !his ma beharsh but in the grand s"im of things Veronicas situation is terrible es# but she should not beable to go after the companies because arr was wrec"less. !he +ram shop law is open tointerpretation and therefore not a solid claim. !he dram shop law states 0servers li/uor to adrin"er who is obviousl into$icated or close to it0. Mabe the server didnt believe or seethat arr was obviousl into$icated and therefor cause doubt. *lso the part was not oncompan time nor was attendance re/uired so it would be e$cepted that those attendingwould be acting on their reconnaissance. 8es# the compan could have not allowed thealcohol but wh ma"e several pa for the actions of one9 I thin" inda and arr should be liable. People need to ta"e responsibilit for their ownactions. People have become 0sue happ0 and want to blame everone else for their ownactions. For e$ample# suing Mc+onalds for a person being overweight or coffee being toohot2 People should be accountable for their own actions. I personall thin" that inda *:+arr should be liable. I thin" that arr made a decision to drive# even after he was givenother options not to. !hen again inda also "new that arr was unable to operate a vehicleet li"e previousl mentioned she let him ma"e that illegal decision. !herefore I must agreewith 'eth and both inda and arr should assume liabilit. ;onsidering the compan "nows that arr and his wife had a habit of going overboard withthe alcohol being served the should have and could have done more. For starters the couldhave set a limit on the amount of alcohol being served# do mandator "e turnin or not servealcohol at all. !he compan could have had officers in attendance to administer field sobriettests or a breathal<er for those that decline the free ta$i service. !he dram shop laws would be "ind of hard to prove. Patrons could show up to the event under the influence and not evenhave a drop of alcohol at the event. I thin" the compan did not do anthing wrong because organi<ations have parties for their emploees all the time. People who are emploed there are adults and the should "nowweather or not the can conduct themselves in a wa that is not negligent to societ. !he business too" e$tra steps and even had a ta$i service on call for those emploees who felt li"ethe should not have been driving. People have to be held accountable for their actions asadults and not be treated as if their children and ultimatel it is their responsibilit. !he dramshop law is a law in 45 states that a business or host who is serving alcohol to drin"ers areheld accountable if that drin"er in1ures another person if that business or host "nows that person is incapable of driving. I do not thin" Veronica will have a case against the business or hotel because it does not state the "new that arr was so into$icated that he could not drive

and the did however offer them to ta"e a ta$i home so the did cover their basis. Veronicawould have to prove this and it would be impossible to do.
0ou could argue that the company pro&ided unlimited and free alcohol to nowndruns. !his underscores the four elements of negligence, which are...1lass, what are the four elements necessary to pro&e the tort of negligence
:egligence# or unintentional tort# can be found specificall in chapter five on page => of our te$t if anone is interested. !he elements involved to prove negligence are% >. +efendant owed a dut of care to the plaintiff. ?. +efendant breached the dut of care. 4. Plaintiff suffered in1ur. @. +efendants negligent act caused the plaintiffs in1ur. A. +efendants negligent act was the pro$imate cause of the plaintiffs in1ur. First# I had to "eep reading to figure out what 0dut of care0 meant. !his is the obligationthat people hold and owe each other not to cause severe harm or ris". !hese elements are putin place to connect the dots and ensure that the in1ur is directl related and caused b thedefendant. !his can help protect individuals or companies from being sued b anone andeverone for something that is indirect.Beferences% Henr B. ;heeseman. 'usiness aw# VitalSource for +eVr 6niversit. 5th,dition. Pearson earning Solutions# ?C>4. Vital'oo" file. 'oo"shelf.!he four important elements to a tort of negligence that must be proven are% >. !he defendant owed a dut# either to the plaintiff or to the general public.?. !he defendant violated that dut.4. !he defendants violation of the dut resulted in harm to the plaintiff.@. !he plaintiffs in1ur was foreseeable b a reasonable person.*s an e$ample# a car manufacturer has a dut to produce a car that is free from unreasonabldangerous defects. ' producing a car with defective bra"es# the manufacturer has violatedthat dut. Furthermore# it is foreseeable that a car with bra"es that do not wor" properl will be involved in a car accident and people could be in1ured in that accident.

>. +ut of ;are proving the defendent had a legal responsibilit to behave in a manner that isconsistent with a reasonable individual ?. 'reach of +ut  proving that the defendent breached his or her dut of care 4. ;ause of In1ur the plaintiff must show that he or she was in1ured b the defendents breach of dut @. +amages the plaintiff will usuall need to show the monetar value of his or her in1uriesthat were caused directl b the breach of dut. :egligence and Personal In1ur ;laims. (n.d.). Spiros aw P; BSS. Betrieved Ma >C#?C>@# from http%&&www.spiroslaw.com&articles&negligenceandpersonalin1urclaims& !he four elements to tort law are% >. +ut ?. 'reach of +ut 4. ;ausation @. In1ur In order to claim damages# there must be a breach in the dut of the defendant towards the plaintiff# which results in an in1ur. http%&&tort.laws.com&tortlawDsthash.EpI/s8v.dpuf Veronicas in1uries and her claims would be that Fun Products# Inc. and the Milton Hotelchain were responsible for arrs drun"en behaviour and driving mishap. She would claimthat Fun Products# Inc. and the Milton Hotel chain didnt ta"e the due care needed after theserved arr drin" a bit too much and the also didnt prevent arr from driving home in hisown car as the "new beforehand that arr was in drun"en condition and as per the statelaw# the driving is not permissible under the drun"en condition. !he claim in this case would be for her in1uries# which include medical bills# lost wages# propert repair costs (her car)#and pain and suffering. She will be the one responsible to prove the damage and pursuing theclaim. !he claim would be against the defendants Fun Products# Inc. and the Milton Hotelchain in this case. Veronica would be the plaintiff and the companies she is suing would be the defendants. Imsure Veronica will sue the companies for her phsical and mental damages# but also

negligence for serving alcohol at a compan function. I never reall understand these "inds of cases because reall how did she "now that the couple came from a part and the names of the companies unless she reall did her research. !he onl issue I would see in suing FunProducts is that the provided the cabs and it would be the emploees fault for not ta"ingone# 3n the other hand I also reall dont understand the Hotels ordeal in this either becausethe were 1ust hosting the part that Fun Products organi<ed. !hen again it alwas ta"es one person to ruin it for everone. Veronica would claim in small court first as ever law suits have some steps to follow andshe has to 1ustif in front of magistrate with reasonable evidence that in1uries and damagestoo" place and she is the plaintiff. I am not arguing about her personal in1uries as she has gother car damaged in accident and surel have got some bodil in1uries as well but no one goesto court unless the have strong reason to do so and her suffering are the proof of incident.Small ;laims ;ourt provides a simpler and less e$pensive wa to resolve disagreements.!hings li"e the amount being claimed# the tpe of claim and limitation periods must beconsidered. *s well# not ever case that can be ta"en to court should end up in court. Ma beshe is thin"ing of settling the matter outside of court which can be less expensive & less timeconsuming and allows the parties not a judge to find an acceptable solution. 'ut in this courtlimited amount can be claimed so what I believe it depends on the type of injuries and she must be aware of that her injuries are worth of that specified limited amount by court which is around $20000