The document discusses the law around consent as a defense for offenses against the person. It provides an overview of key cases that have established rules and exceptions regarding consent. It also presents a hypothetical scenario from another jurisdiction to analyze whether consent could be a valid defense for intentionally causing harm. The document aims to assess students' existing knowledge and guide them in improving essay responses through highlighting cases, legal rules, and evaluating the development and impact of reforms.
Courtroom Observation, Liberty UniversityBy ozwitch01 Studymode.co.docxfaithxdunce63732
Courtroom Observation, Liberty UniversityBy ozwitch01 | Studymode.com
Darlene E.B Hines
Professor Hudson
BUSI 301 Fall
September 22, 2013
Courtroom Observation:
2008 1L Moot Court Tournament at the Liberty University School of Law, White V. Gibbs CA# -8776-CV285.
This case is between the (plaintiff) Mrs. White and the (defendants) Patrick Gibbs and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C. as O’Malley’s Tavern. A Motion of Summary Judgment on behalf of O’Malley’s Tavern in the US District Court of Northern District of Indiana. Is being argued/presented.
Briefly; Mrs. White is suing the defendant Patrick Gibbs of O’Malley’s Tavern where as the bartender served Mr. Hard with alcoholic beverages which lead to his intoxication, thus getting into his vehicle, driving erratic chasing both Mrs. White and her husband (Bruno), striking their vehicle in the side, causing physical injuries to Mrs. White and killing her husband Mr. White.
The defendants are filing a Motion of Summary Judgment to resolve the lawsuit in their favor, whereas the plaintiff does not want the Motion of Summary Judgment granted and the lawsuit to go to trial with jury to recover damages from the defendants.
The lawyers for the defendants are: Benjamin Walton and Jordon Van Meter. As the Motion of Summary Judgment is being heard/presented by the dependents their attorneys will go first.
1. Attorney Benjamin Walton is arguing there is no evidence of “Actual Knowledge of Visible Intoxicfication” and that the court should grant this motion. The bartender (Mr. John Daniels) of O’Malley’s though charged 13 drinks to Mr. Hard’s account and yes did see Mr. Hard drink 11 of the beverages in a short period of time but, at no time' during the service did the bartender have “Actual Knowledge of Visible Intoxification” of Mr. Hard's under the Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5. Even though he tried to hit Mr. White on their leaving the establishment, lost his balance and fell. Mr. Hard was able to get up by himself with no assistance to his car was required. This was addressed due to the question of the Ashlock Vs Norris case where assistance was required to get to her car, but again. Mr. Hard was able to get up by himself with no assistance to his car was required.. 2. Attorney Jordan Van Meter is arguing that there was no “proximate causation evidence” under the same Dram Shop act. The plaintiff is a victim of a crime not proximate cause based on intoxication of the injury. The facts presented were based on previous pre-existing criminal acts of Mr. Hard to cause harm to Mr. White. This is based on his break-up of his fiancée and her marriage to Mr. White. Where as he started to drink in excessive, receiving OWI’s , his statement of “she is to be my wife” the position of his car and his willful wanted malicious criminal act as in: Fast Eddie’s Vs Hall, it is superseding cause to proximate cause. Showing intent sho.
1. G153 Criminal Law 2010-11 Non-fatal Offences Against the Person: Consent
2.
3. Some Basics... What canyou consent to? How does consent operate? As a defence? As part of the AR of assault? Whyis it a defence at all?
4. Both these women helped their children to die. One was convicted of murder One was convicted of assisting suicide... But not guilty of attempted murder. Why the difference?
5. What do we mean by consent? It must be real Informed? Duress? Capacity? Mistake?
6. General Rules: “implied consent” Collins v Willock 1984 AGs Ref No 6 of 1980 R v Leach 1969 What if D and V consent to the fight? Basic rules of the case... Any unlawful touching of V with out his consent is enough for ‘assault’ An assault must be done contrary to the will, and without the consent of V. Ordinarily if V consents, D is not guilty However, there can exceptions to this rule, due to public interest. “transient and trifling” R v Brown 1993
8. How much do you remember from last lesson?Match the answer to the question What is the general rule on consent? Nature & Quality On what grounds may there be exceptions to this rule? Mere submission Ordinarily if V consents, D has a defence to harm less than bodily On what grounds is it a defence? Who cannot consent? Public policy What type of action may not be enough for consent? Acts as an excuse for D’s actions What should D know for the consent to be “informed” Children, and those who lack capacity
9. A new development:Conviction for on-the-ball in football. Read the report: Does he meet the Barnes test? R v Chapman 2010
10. Sexual Activity R v Slingsby R v Donovan R v Brown R v Wilson R v Emmett
11. Which other cases regarding harm with sexual aspects could you also include in any discussion on this area? So: Can you consent to harm which is more than transient and trifling and is imposed during sexual intercourse?
12. What about another jurisdiction? These are the facts of the American Browncase.... 1. V is an alcoholic, who has tried everything to give up alcohol, but nothing has worked. She has lost one marriage to it, and can not hold down a job. 2. She marries a guy 3. She, in absolute desperation, says to her husband, "Whenever you see me drunk, you have to hit me. I'll start to associate it with the drink and I'll give up." 4. Her husband protests, and refuses, but eventually decides he has to help her. 5. One day, she comes back drunk, and he hits her a number of times, injuring her extensively. 6. The neighbours call the police, and the husband is arrested and charged with the equivilant of GBH 7. He argues, as his defence, that she consented to the violence, and she supports this in court. Does he have a defence?
15. Another definition of consent? Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.74 a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Mental Capacity Act 2005 A person is unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable— (a)to understand the information relevant to the decision, (b)to retain that information, (c)to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision, or (d)to communicate his decision (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means). These are two of the definitions, with relation to health and sexual decisions
16. Wayne is the captain of Northport United Football team. During an important match against their local rivals, Wayne is involved in a clash of heads in an incident with an opposing player, Andrew. Wayne receives a nasty bruise above the right eye and is badly concussed. Wayne insists upon continuing after treatment with a cold sponge but is obviously still in a very dazed condition. A few minutes later Wayne jumps wildly into a foul tackle on Andrew. Andrew is carried off in agony and x-rays later reveal that he has a broken ankle. Assessing your knowledge... How much do you know? Section C questions.
17. Statement A: Andrew is liable for occasioning actual bodily harm to Wayne. Statement B: Wayne is liable for intentionally causing the broken ankle sustained by Andrew. Statement C: Andrew has a defence of consent for any charge brought by Wayne Statement D: Wayne has a defence of automatism for any charge brought by Andrew.
18. Understanding...Answer the Questions on the Cards... These will end up creating a basic essay plan! Why is consent a defence? Name three exceptions to the general rule Give one reason why the current law should change Explain why the courts have imposed limitations on the defence Name one limitation on the defence Give one reason why the current state of the law may be acceptable
26. Have you forgotten to mention the legal test or decision which came out of the case?Improving your response
27. Now, you are going to write one section of the essay “The law on consent as a defence against the person recognises that the causing of deliberate harm may sometimes be justified.”Consider the truth of this statement (50) We are going to write the section on rough and tumble horseplay. Start: Which cases would be useful? Next: What rules come out of them? Then: What justification is there for these rules? And: What problems may there be with justifying this?