Courtroom Law Observation, Essay Example

In the Law and Ethics course the professor tries to bring the students back to traditional Common Law whilst spirituality was once part of the study and practice of law. He stresses that lawyers must think morally and ethically and not lose sight of their spiritual sense whilst practicing the law. They further have a Code of Conduct of the law to adhere to to protect the rights of their clients, the public and the courts if they want to keep their law license just as licensed doctors have to adhere to moral and a Code of Conduct. Keeping in mind a spiritual view while practicing the law is the basis for any lawyer to adhere to the constraints of being an ethical lawyer and practicing good law especially when a lawyer questions what he/she should do in a certain situation. Following the Biblical worldview is an excellent practice when practicing law because it keeps a lawyer honest and keeps a lawyer from losing his/her license.

The Basic Code of Conducts for a Practicing Licensed Attorney is:

• “Lawyers must observe all rules of law, including the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the
• State Bar Act, particularly B & P Code §6068.
• Lawyers should honor their commitments.
• Lawyers should honor and maintain the integrity of our system of justice.
• Lawyers should not compromise their integrity for the sake of a client, case or cause.
• Lawyers should conduct themselves in a professional manner.
• Lawyers should be guided by a fundamental sense of fair play in all professional dealings. “(San Diego Bar Association).

In the Indiana District Court of Indiana White v Patrick Gibbs and O’Mallys Tavern and Patrick Gibbs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment by (Defendants). Attorney Walton represented the Defendants and proceeded first. There was an issue of whether John Daniels actually witnessed any ‘actual intoxication’ on the part of Edward Hard Defendants state he was not engaging in any activity that would have indicated an intoxicated stated. The statute requires ‘actual knowledge’ of intoxication, not constructive knowledge. Circumstantial evidence can be used to support an inference of ‘actual knowledge’. This is subjective, not objective and differs on each individual persons sized and weight. Plaintiff claims he saw individual consuming many drinks in a period of time. Defendant argued though Hard may have been intoxicated he ‘did not exhibit actual knowledge of visible intoxication under the statute of Indiana’. Must be manifested in a ‘visible manner to the bartender’. See: Culver v Microburst (1999). Judge stated legislative has not abolished ‘constructive knowledge’. Defendant’s attorney legislative has had much time since 1999 to make it clear if they wanted to support constructive knowledge. Defendant’s lawyer states there was ‘no negligence’. John Daniels had already served Hard his last drink when he stumbled at the out entrance of the door. The Plaintiff testified she did not witness any signs of any ‘outward intoxication’. Intoxication outward manifestation did not occur until after the bartender served Hard his last drink when Hard left bar afterwards. There is hope that lawyers will be transformed more into the image of the living God to grow in him. Students who understand Christianity as a life system and a way to apply these values to their life will find there is a way to travel on a journey in which God will richly bless them in their daily life and law career.

Wrapping up the case, a half hour after leaving the bar Mr. Hard was driving on the wrong side of the road and slammed into the White’s driver side door and White was immediately pronounced dead on arrival by the police. A blood alcohol test clearly found Mr. Hard’s blood alcohol level above the legal limit. Normally Summary Judgment is awarded when there is ‘no material fact’ to support a claim. See: Fed R. Civ. Proc. 56 (c). Under the Dram Shop Act the defendant argued the ‘actual visual knowledge’ supporting argument. The Plaintiff must prove that the intoxicating drink was a ‘proximate cause’ of the death or injury satisfying the material cause in order to stop Summary Judgment in favor of the defendant. There is legal and factual proximate cause to prove.

The court found that it could be inferred that the bartender had ample time to notice intoxication serving such large amounts of alcohol to the defendant and she herself had been intoxicated or drinking. There was testimony that ‘everyone knew Hard was clearly intoxicated’ which more than satisfied the test of Ashlock. In Adams Township v Sturdevant it was distinguished ‘the defendants could easily have foreseen the Defendant was intoxicated’ therefore proximity was easily established. Further the ‘chain of causation was not broken’ hence the defendant’s intoxication was the primary cause of the death of the person. Negligence had been determined. There was a duty of care.

Mrs. White met the requirements under Indiana statute for proximate cause and actual knowledge and was entitled to recover for her injuries and for the death of her husband under the Indiana Dram Shop Act. Mrs. White did not commit any act(s) to break the chain of causation therefore Mr. Hand’s intoxication and the bartender knowing he was intoxicated were the proximate causes of her injuries and of her husband’s death. Material fact was clearly demonstrated under the Dram Shop Act. Hence the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was DENIED and Mrs. White was ALLOWED to proceed with her claim to JURY TRIAL.

I agreed with the decision the judge made because circumstantial evidence can be inferred if it can be proven that it was ‘visible that the defendant was drunk or showed evidence of drunkardness’. This was proven by material facts.

Causation, both legal and factual was proved. Causation is the relationship between the negligent act and the cause of the act or the linkage. In criminal law is combining and showing a relationship between the actus reus and the mens rea. The actus reus is the actual act and the mens rea is the state of mind which must both be fulfilled to prove causation or guilt. Causation cannot be sufficient in tort cases to establish liability but is a step or tool used in the process. For instance in tort or product liability a duty of care, breach and damage must be shown as well as proximity to win a case (prove negligence).

References

Adams Township v Surdevant 570 N.E. 2d 87 (Ind Ct. of App. 1987)

Ashcock Culver v McRoberts (1999) Dram Shop Act San Diego Bar Association Retrieved March 19, 2010 from, http://www.sdcba.org/index.cfm?pg=AttyCodeConduct