Legal Memorandum for Lucky Duck’s Case

Legal Memorandum for Lucky Duck’s Case

Do you need urgent assignment help ? Get in touch with us.

Timeline

Steven owns the Lucky Duck, a bar with five bartenders. All bartenders have been trained in mixing various drinks. The Lucky Duck employs a security agent on weekends because the crowd is rowdier. There are contacts for cabs within the locality in case the patrons are too intoxicated to drive. Michael went to the bar with his friends on one Saturday evening. All the bartenders served the group drinks and shots until 1 a.m. Michael ordered a glass from Melissa and said it was his last. Later, he sent a friend to a different bartender to get him a beer. When he finished, Michael went to the parking lot. The security guards watched him drive away and acknowledged his drunken state. While driving home, Michael ran into Mindy, who was leaving work. Mindy sustained significant injuries, which caused high hospital bills. Mindy had an intent to sue Michael for driving under the influence of alcohol when his lawyer mentioned that she could sue the bar as well for overserving drinks to Michael. Michael was fired after the accident and accrued significant debt.

Issue

The main Issue in this case is whether Lucky Duck is legally liable for overserving its patrons, specifically Michael, who caused an accident while driving under the influence of alcohol.

Rules

It is illegal to drive while intoxicated in Minnesota. Furthermore, the state’s dram shop laws articulate that a victim such as Mindy can sue a licensed alcohol vendor for sustained damages and injuries caused by an intoxicated individual (McCurley, 2022). According to Minnesota Civil Damages Act, “a spouse, child, or other person injured has a right of action against a person who caused the intoxication of that person by illegally selling alcoholic beverages” (Morgan, 2000). The vendor is considered liable for illegally selling alcohol to the individual. Illegality does not only occur based on age. It also occurs when a vendor sells alcohol to an already intoxicated individual (Law Against Over Served at Bar Customers – Dram Shop Lawyer, n.d.). The act has undergone numerous changes. However, the courts have decided that the term ‘any person’ only applies to a commercial vendor.

Analysis

Based on Minnesota’s dram shop laws, Lucky Duck is the social host and could be liable for overserving Michael (Morgan, 2000). Based on the issue, the group was rowdy enough and bought drinks until 1 a.m. The wait staff had the necessary training to perform their roles. Their conscious or unconscious decision to continue serving Michael drinks is illegal. This illegality arises in Michael’s state of intoxication, which was further exacerbated by the additional beverages. The security guard who noticed that Michael was heavily intoxicated was negligent in placing the bar in a state of liability for the resulting accident. Despite having the necessary cab contacts, the security made no effort to ensure that Michael used a cab instead of driving. As a result, the accident cost Mindy significant financial resources in hospital bills.

In “Trail v. Vill of Elk River,” the plaintiff must show that the patron’s intoxication upon the sale of alcoholic drinks can be identified by observing an individual’s conduct. In Michael’s case, his friends were rowdy and had taken drinks continuously till 1 a.m. This period of drinking shots and other beverages is a positive sign of significant intoxication. This determination confirms that Michael was significantly intoxicated while at the Lucky Duck and still accessed more alcohol. This finding aligns with the Rambaum v. Swisher case, where the court required a plaintiff to prove that the sale increased the intoxication and resulted in the accident. This requirement is easily detected in the Issue because Michael has been at Lucky Duck for a long period. While the case does not state whether the friends were intoxicated when they came to Lucky Duck, the period of drinking confirms that they had a significant number of alcoholic drinks (Morgan, 2000). In the absence of such information, it follows that the group was intoxicated at the Lucky Duck, where the bartenders continued to serve them alcohol illegally.

Conclusion

In Lucky Duck’s case, Mindy can successfully sue the bar for overserving Michael. As a requirement, the licensed bar is expected to stop serving alcohol to patrons once they realize they are intoxicated. Continuous serving of alcohol to intoxicated patrons is illegal and unacceptable by-laws that regulate the sale of alcohol in Minnesota. In addition, it is possible to identify intoxicated persons by their behavior. As narrated in the Issue, Michael and his friends were rowdy. They had been taking shots and other alcoholic drinks till the morning hours. Michael staggered to the counter to get a beer. Furthermore, Michael shook to the parking lot in the presence of the security guard, who acknowledged his drunken state. These aspects were sufficient for the bartenders to stop selling additional alcohol to Michael and his friends.

Stating that the bar has displayed cab contacts is insufficient because an intoxicated person’s mental and cognitive functions are significantly diminished. Therefore, these contacts are only important to the patrons if their levels of intoxication are relatively low or the bartenders and other staff members assist them in making requests. Otherwise, Michael couldn’t acknowledge that he should call a cab instead of driving home in intoxication.

Lucky Duck is liable because of its illegal sale of alcohol to Michael, who could have been unable to gauge his level of intoxication despite being an adult. Since the staff members were sober and aware of the situation, they were responsible for having Michael use the cab contacts on display. Suppose the bartenders did not sell additional alcohol to Michael and his friends upon noticing that they were intoxicated; the accident could have been avoided. Michael could have left earlier while less drunk. This means that he could have seen the stop sign and obeyed it. This simple action could have changed the entire narrative and eliminated any liabilities for the licensed alcohol seller. The bartender who noticed that Michael was intoxicated should have monitored his behavior or alerted other bartenders to ensure that none sold more alcohol to him.

The bartenders and other staff displayed significant negligence and a lack of care for their patrons. This negligence built into illegality and led to an accident that caused physical damage to Mindy. In addition, Mindy suffered financial and emotional injuries due to the illegal sale. Therefore, the Lucky Duck should be held partially responsible for the accident that Michael caused on his way home.

References

law Against Over Served At Bar Customers – Dram Shop Lawyer. (n.d). Retrieved from Rochlin Law Firm Ltd.: https://rochlinlaw.com/drunk-driving-accidents/dram-shop-law-against-bar-overserving-lawyer-mn/

McCurley, J. (2022). Minnesota Dram Shop Laws and Social Host Liability for Alcohol-Related Accidents.

Morgan, M. H. (2000). Torts—Minnesota’s Civil Damages Act: Unanswered Questions. William Mitchell Law Review, 26(1).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Legal Memorandum for Lucky Duck’s Case

The purpose of this assignment is to draft an effective Legal Memorandum.

Construct a Legal Memorandum

Instructions:

For this assignment, you will be constructing a Legal Memorandum. You must draft the Questions Presented/Issue, a Short Answer, an engaging Fact Statement using relevant facts, and a Rule based on the facts provided and the cases you analyzed in weeks 3 and 4. You also must include sections for Application and Conclusion, which should weave together your IRAC analysis and distinctions from weeks 3 and 4. In the end, you should have drafted an effective legal memorandum explaining Lucky Duck’s liability and any potential outcome of a lawsuit against Lucky Duck for the injuries Mindy caused.
As a reminder, the following is your set of facts:
Steven owns a bar, The Lucky Duck. The Lucky Duck employs five bartenders, all of whom he has provided training on mixing drinks and general employment issues. It also uses a security person on weekends when the patrons are a bit rowdier. The Lucky Duck has posted signs in the restroom giving patrons the phone numbers of local cab companies if they are too intoxicated to drink at home.
Michael went to The Lucky Duck with friends one Saturday night to celebrate his promotion. His friends ordered rounds of shots from all the bartenders and large beers all night, toasting Michael’s recent success. As the night went on, the group became more intoxicated and rowdier. At 1 a.m., one of the bartenders, Melissa, told Michael it was his “last round,” as he was staggering when he walked up to the bar. After finishing that beer, Michael had his friend buy him another from a different bartender, Sally. Shortly after completing his last drink, Michael decided to head home. Security watched Michael walk towards the parking lot, muttering, “what a drunk.”
On his way home, Michael ran a stop sign and ran into Mindy, driving home from a late shift as a nurse at the local hospital. Mindy was severely injured with a concussion, fractured ribs, internal bleeding, a broken arm, lacerations to her face and hands, and contusions where her seatbelt dug into her. Mindy was forced to take several months off work to recover, and her hospital bills were large.
Mindy sought an attorney, who told her she should sue Michael. Michae,l however, lost his job after the accident and was drowning in debt. Therefore, the attorney told Mindy to sue The Lucky Duck for overserving Michael.
You are free to re-review the cases from weeks 3 and 4 and should incorporate any feedback you’ve received regarding your previous analysis.
Format:

Your final assignment should be formatted as follows:

Provide a Heading/Caption
Drafted Questions Presented/Issue
Provide a Short Answer to the Issue (s)
Draft an effective, engaging, Factual Statement
Provide the Rules/Law
Draft the Application/Analysis
Provide your conclusion