Reference no: EM133659289

Sullivan and his friend William are having a quiet drink togeter one evening in the Tennessee Tavern when they got into an argument with four men at the next table. Who were inbrieated and looking for a fight. There was a brief scuffle when one of the four men attacked Sullivan. The scuffle was broken up by two members of the tavern staff. The tavern owner had the four men ejected by the book door of the tavern. He then told Sullivan and Williams to leave by the front door. They did so to be confronted by the four who vicously attacked them. Causing serious injury to Sullivan. Sullivan brought an action against the owners of teh tavern alleging that he was partly responsible for causing the injuries. Should Sillivan succeed?

Respond to these takes! do you agree/disgaree? provide some insight and pose a insightful question regarding law of what you see fit!

1. Sullivan alleges that the tavern owner is partly responsible for the injuries he sustained. To determine the strength of his case we must analyze the tavern owner's duty and standard of care. The first scuffle to break out was initiated by the four men who are visually intoxicated and looking to fight. I believe that the owner falls short in their standard of care here. The tavern owner over-served these four men failing to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable injury or damage. Afterward, the tavern owner does force both parties to leave from different exits, however they are all forced to leave at the same time, all this accomplishes is moving where the fight takes place. In doing so, they take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable damage to the tavern. however, they do not take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable injury to Sullivan. I believe that Sullivan should succeed as the men were "obviously" looking for a fight and the tavern owner did not take reasonable care to avoid the fight or keep the two parties separate after the scuffle.

2. For our second discussion, we were assigned to look at case 2 in chapter 4. Before I discuss this I feel it is important to define what torts is. Torts is defined as a wrongful act causing harm to the person or property of another and the purpose is to compensate victims for harm caused by others and hold people accountable for their actions. In the case of this problem, there is a lot to unpack and look at. In this scenario, I do not think Sullivan can succeed as the owner had no intention of causing any harm to the individuals. He told the 4 men to exit through the backdoor and told Sullivan and his friend to exit through another door. He tried his best to separate the group and prevent them from getting in an altercation. He had no intentions of doing any wrongdoings and Sullivan has no grounds to continue this case.