Understanding the Dispassionate Analysis (Other (Not Listed) Sample)
A component of legal analysis is the notion of "dispassionate" analysis. According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, dispassionate means an individual who is not influenced by strong feeling, especially not affected by personal or emotional involvement. While many debate whether any human being can be truly dispassionate due to our inherent nature, legal analysis stands on the notion of dispassionate analysis. When analyzing a case, the analysis does not include how you "feel" about the issue.
Marie Beaumont throws a large party at her cottage an hour or so out of town. She owns a chain of wineries and supplies most of the alcoholic refreshment herself. Charlie Paylor, a renowned party animal, was invited and drives there with his friend, Jamie Singh. They both drink a considerable amount and Marie is highly amused at their crazy antics. After midnight, Charlie and Jamie leave. On the way home, they are involved in an accident with Tom in which they are all seriously injured. The most significant authority is Menow v. Honsberger and Jordan House, S.C.R. 239 (1974), in which a hotel was held partly responsible for injuries caused to a drunken patron who was thrown out of the hotel and later run over by a negligent driver on a busy highway near the hotel. Assume for purposes of this hypothetical that it is also the only relevant precedent.
Argue on behalf of Charlie, Jamie, and Tom's side (WHY Ms. Marie Beaumont IS LIABLE and RESPONSIBLE?).
Remember to employ what you have learned regarding IRAC in organizing your argument(s).
IRAC= Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion
What's the issue?
What's the rule?
What is the application?
Conclusion WHY Ms. Marie Beaumont IS LIABLE and RESPONSIBLE?
Facts:
Marie Beaumont is a responsible businesswoman and she owns Alcohol's company and is also well aware of the chemical composition of her winery's products. She's having a party where Charlie and Jamie are invited. Although drinking, both are known for their conduct. hey both served more drinks than Marie Beaumont knew, and she appreciated their funny and playful behavior. She allowed their servant to enjoy their funny acts at a party by serving more drinks rather than stop them from drinking. For her visitors, she is responsible. She is negligence in her action and did not care about her duty to perform.
Issues
The following issues are arising in the given case.
* Marie Beaumont has invited all the guests to her party. Is she responsible for her guests?
* What is her duty to care? And where she is negligence in her duty to care?
* An accident that occurred due to an overdose of intoxication and that alcohol served at the party of Marie Beaumont. She is well known about the consequences of overdosing any individual.
* The Victims after dosing went out of the party and Maries knows that they must be unable to drive carefully.
Other Topics:
- Case Digests Of Libel Cases In The PhilippinesDescription: In my media law class, we were required to digest at least 10 cases of libel. this paper is a case digest of 10 libel cases in the philippines....11 pages/≈3025 words| No Sources | Other | Law | Other (Not Listed) |
- Answering Law Questions Paper: Intellectual PropertyDescription: From a question paper of nine questions, attempt any Five questions and use the attached book and notes to get the answers...8 pages/≈2200 words| 1 Source | Other | Law | Other (Not Listed) |
- Criminology EssayDescription: A review of the warrant was done by two supervisory officers and an assistant DA, together with the magistrate who had it signed...2 pages/≈550 words| No Sources | Other | Law | Other (Not Listed) |
