Question

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?

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.