1. Legal Research and Writing I
Assignment #4
Sahar Saqib
1. Locate 2 secondary sources, 2 statutes, and 4 cases and write down each source with its proper
bluebook citation format.
2. Provide a summary of the relevance of each source to the issue(s) in the Open Memo and
provide proper short citation format for each source.
Secondary Sources (3)
 Wachtler, Jared, Are New York’s Social Host Liability Laws Too Strict, Too Lenient or Just
Right?, 27 Tuoro Law Review, 309, 310-337 (2011)
This article is useful because it gives an in-depth analysis of a social host’s contributory
negligent liability for injuries to a third party. It can be used to determine whether Betty can
establish Super Convenience Store’s liability towards subsequent injuries. The journal was
published in 2011 when the old laws on texting and driving in New York still applied, as it
would in this case. It lays down the three grounds for when a social host may typically be held
liable in such a scenario; by common law negligence rules, under the dram shop act of New
York, or by violating a legislative statute. Wachtler, at 313. I was able to find the case of
Sherman v Robinson as well as Linn v Rand in this article.
 Alexander, Vincent C, Supplementary Practice Commentaries - C1411:3. Plaintiff's Conduct
as a Complete Bar to Recovery.
This article provided a lot of insight as to the comparative law doctrine as stated in Civil Practice
Law and Rules 1411. The Section adopts the rule of pure comparative fault, making it possible
for the plaintiff to be 99% responsible for their injuries yet still recover 1% of his damages.
Supplementary Commentaries, at 1.
 Garner, Bryan A., Black’s Law Dictionary Fourth Pocket Edition, 137, 168. (West
Publishing, 1996)
I found that using the abridged Black’s Law Dictionary was helpful in locating and
understanding the definitions and difference between contributory negligence, Black’s, at 168,
and comparative negligence. Id., at 137. The Dictionary will be a great aid in tackling principles
of law and legal terminologies during my attempt at the open memo.

2. Statutes (4)
I found the following Sections of the below Acts and Statutes to be helpful to me in my research
and understanding of the Open Memo case. I have included the particular Sections which I
intend to use in the Memo.
 New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 65
§ 65 - No person shall sell, deliver or give away or cause or permit or procure to be sold,
delivered or given away any alcoholic beverages to
(1) Any person, actually or apparently, under the age of twenty-one years,
(2) Any visibly intoxicated person
Based on this Act, we know that SCS cannot be held liable for selling alcohol to William who
was above the legal drinking age.
 New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1225-d. Use of portable electronic devices
§ 1225-d – No person shall operate a motor vehicle while using any portable electronic device
while such vehicle is in motion….
(a) “Portable electronic device” shall mean any hand-held mobile telephone.
(b) “Using” shall mean holding a portable electronic device while viewing, taking or
transmitting images, playing games, or, for the purpose of present or future
communication: performing a command or request to access a world wide web page,
composing, sending, reading, viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or
retrieving e-mail, text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
These are provisions from the new Vehicle and Traffic Law. Under this law, Betty will likely be
liable for texting on her phone while her car was still in ‘drive’. As the case is to be tried by the
laws in 2013, this law will not apply but it is worth mentioning so as to state the proper law
today.
 New York General Obligations Law, § 11-101
§ 11-101: Any person who shall be injured in person, property, means of support, or otherwise
by any intoxicated person, or by reason of the intoxication of any person, whether resulting in his
death or not, shall have a right of action against any person who shall, by unlawfully selling to or
unlawfully assisting in procuring liquor for such intoxicated person, have caused or contributed
to such intoxication; and in any such action such person shall have a right to recover actual and
exemplary damages.

3.  New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, § 1411 Damages recoverable when contributory
negligence or assumption of risk is established
Under this Section, pure comparative fault makes it possible for the plaintiff to be 99%
responsible for their injuries yet still recover 1% of his damages. Supplementary
Commentary, supra.
Cases (4)
 Sherman v. Robinson, 591 N.Y.S.2d 974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992)
I found this case to be very relevant and similar to the facts of Betty’s case, and helpful in
addressing the first issue. A store clerk at a convenience store sold alcohol to the tortfeasor’s
friend. The New York Court of Appeals held that the store could not be held liable for the
indirect sale of alcohol, despite plaintiff’s arguments that the store clerk should be liable under
Section 11-101 of the New York General Obligations Law because they should have known that
the amount of alcohol bought was excessive for one person. Also the section only applies to the
illegal sale of alcohol. Sherman, at 977.
 Linn v Rand, 140 N.J.Super, 212 (Ct. App. Div. 1976)
This case deals with whether or not a social host had knowledge that the guest would drive a car
after consuming alcohol that they provided. Id., at 216. The point of interest in this case is the
injury that was caused to an innocent third party that the Superior Court, Appellate Division held
the social host was liable to. A social host traditionally means a person who furnishes alcohol to
another in a social setting and not is not a licensed vendor of alcohol. Wachtler, at 319. William
is the social host in Betty’s case, but we can draw inference from the Court’s reasoning in Linn
to that of Sherman, supra, and deduce from its holding that the principle in Linn will also apply
to Super Convenience Store. SCS will be comparatively negligent for providing excessive
amounts of alcohol to William with credible knowledge that minors will be drinking with him at
a party.
 People v Goldstein, 957 N.Y.S 2d 265 (N.Y App. Div. 2012)
In this case, the Court did not find the defendant utilizing their hand held device while the
vehicle was in motion. The Court reviewed Section 1225-d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Goldstein, at 2. The defendant’s hands were also below the steering wheel and away from his
face. The Court did however stress that there was no mention by the police officer whether the
defendant was looking down as he was allegedly texting, and that if he had, he would be texting
for purposes of Section 1225-d. We know that Betty was looking down at her phone while she
was texting. This case will help us prove to Betty that she may not be successful in bringing a
per se negligence claim against SCS, but could be successful with a comparative negligence
claim, with reduced damages.

4.  People v Riexinger, 968 N.Y.S.2d 832, (Town Ct., Niagara County, 2013).
In this case, the Court narrowly interpreted the use of a mobile phone by a motorist who was
ticketed by the police for holding her cellphone while driving. The Defendant was held not guilty
for only checking the time on her phone. Riexinger, at 832. We know that Betty was texting
while she was driving. We may discuss the fact that the Court, around the time of Betty’s
accident in 2013, narrowly interprets use of a portable hand held device while driving. The fact
that there is evidence suggesting that Betty was texting while driving may reduce the damages
she seeks but not entirely nullify her claim against SCS under the Pure Comparative Fault Rule,
supra.