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 : <u>intoxicated</u>
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.
Answer:
The correct answer is : Sergio is not liable for Sarah's injuries
Explanation:
In this situation in regards to liability, Sergio is probably not liable for Sarah's injuries because he was assuring the contract to be done. Remember that a contract is an agreement between different parties and the responsibilities were set. In this case, Sergio is not responsible for the incident and they didn't agree on injuries, just in mowing.
The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be informed of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights.
Individuals around the world are about 99.1% genetically identical
