Mary Sabo suffered injuries in an automobile accident caused by Daniel Hoag, an intoxicated driver. Hoag had just left Peoples Restaurant after having consumed a large number of drinks. Sabo sued Peoples for damages, alleging that the restaurant had violated a state statute that provided that any person who "knowingly serves" an individual who is "habitually addicted" to alcohol may be held liable for any injuries or damages caused by the intoxication of that individual. In spite of evidence indicating that for the two years prior to the accident, Hoag had gone to Peoples twice a week and on each occasion had drunk liquor until he was intoxicated, the trial court granted Peoples' motion for summary judgment. The court held that Sabo had failed to show that Peoples had knowledge that Hoag was an alcoholic and the bar had therefore not "knowingly" served an alcohol addict. Was summary judgment for Peoples appropriate in this case?

Question

Chiquita

Social Studies

6 April, 11:32

Mary Sabo suffered injuries in an automobile accident caused by Daniel Hoag, an intoxicated driver. Hoag had just left Peoples Restaurant after having consumed a large number of drinks. Sabo sued Peoples for damages, alleging that the restaurant had violated a state statute that provided that any person who "knowingly serves" an individual who is "habitually addicted" to alcohol may be held liable for any injuries or damages caused by the intoxication of that individual. In spite of evidence indicating that for the two years prior to the accident, Hoag had gone to Peoples twice a week and on each occasion had drunk liquor until he was intoxicated, the trial court granted Peoples' motion for summary judgment. The court held that Sabo had failed to show that Peoples had knowledge that Hoag was an alcoholic and the bar had therefore not "knowingly" served an alcohol addict. Was summary judgment for Peoples appropriate in this case?

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Zaire Heath · Answer 1

I think the summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case

Summary judgement is entered by the court if the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence that the defendants actually do what they're accused of before moving to trial.

On this case, There is a strong proof that peoples restaurant is aware of Hoag's alcoholism : intoxicated

This mean that sabo can proof that the bar know hoag is an alcoholic and had served enough amount to hoag to get him intoxicated.

This mean that Sabo's case is strong enough to be brought to the trial. keep in mind that Sabo is unlikely to win the trial since the restaurant does not directly involved in the accident. but we can definitely say that summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case.