1

Courtroom Observation: White v. Hard

Courtroom Observation: White v. Hard

Sarah Dolan
Liberty University

Courtroom Observation: White v. Hard

Courtroom Observation: White v. Hard

Case Overview
Case number 82A04-8876-CB285 which is the case of White v. Gibbs in which Mrs.
White is suing Mr. Gibbs and OMalleys Tavern under the Indiana Dram Shop Act, Indiana
Code 7.1-5-10-15.5. This case is being held in the United States District Court in front of a
panel of judges, in the Northern District of Indiana, but is still being decided under Indiana State
law. The attorneys Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter are representing the defendant
Patrick Gibbs and OMalleys Tavern. The attorneys that are representing the plaintiff Deborah
White are Jackson Walsh and Amanda Babbitt.
On the night of Saturday, July 28, 2007 at OMalleys Tavern in Gary Indiana is when
everything began. The Plaintiff Deborah White and her husband Bruno White entered the
OMalleys to have dinner. That same evening Edward Hard had been heavily drinking at the
tavern. Edward Hard was Deborah Whites ex-fianc. That night he got up from the bar walked
over and congratulated the Whites on their marriage and walked back to the bar and continued to
drink. In a matter of thirty minutes he had consumed six shots of whiskey that were prepared for
him by John Daniels the only licensed bartender on duty at the tavern. At one point Mr. Hard
attempts to get up from his bar stool and proceeds to trip over a pool stick, but was able to regain
his composure before the bartender was able to see. At this point Mr. and Mrs. White decide to
head out, but while they are leaving Mr. Hard yells she should have been my wife. The
Whites ignore Mr. Harts comment and proceed out the front door of the tavern. Mr. Hard gets
up and proceeds to follow them out of the tavern, stumbling on his way out after them. The
Whites and Mr. Hard get into their own vehicles. The Whites proceed out of the parking lot and
Mr. Hard continues to follow them in his van chasing them down the road. Mrs. White calls 911

Courtroom Observation: White v. Hard

and tells them that Mr. Hard is chasing them down the road. While Mr. Hard is chasing them
down the road swerving, taking out mailboxes, and about a half a mile down the road Mr. Hard
ends up driving into the Whites vehicle, killing Mr. White and injuring Mrs. White. The
defendants have made a motion for summary judgment, seeking judgment as a matter of law in
their favor. Mrs. White has responded to that the summary judgment should not be granted and
that the case should go to trial.
Defendants Overview:
The defendants in this case are claiming that there was insufficient evidence for the
bartender John Daniels to make an inference visually that Mr. Hard was truly intoxicated and
only contextual knowledge can be proven. If the defendant can prove that there were no visual
signs of impairment or intoxication there is no legal wrongdoing. This is based off of the 1988
Supreme Court Case that stated that contextual knowledge is not enough evidence.
Plaintiff Overview:
The plaintiff in this case is requesting that the judge deny the summary judgment. Mrs.
White claims that there was sufficient evidence that the bartender John Daniels would have seen
visual signs of intoxication from Mr. Hart. Edward Hart had consumed over 11 alcoholic
beverages within two hours while he sat at the bar in the tavern. The plaintiff claims that
regardless of body type, shape or size the amount of alcohol consumed by one individual is
enough to infer that he had shown visible signs of intoxication.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
The Plaintiff in this case Mrs. White should have her denial of summary judgment
granted based on criminal actions. There were many chances for the bartender Mr. John Daniels
to clearly see that Mr. Hard was indeed intoxicated before leaving OMalleys Tavern. There was

Courtroom Observation: White v. Hard

the one incident in which Mr. Hard tripped over a pool stick, but the heavy drinking, the loud
remarks towards the Whites, and the actual stumbling of Mr. Hard towards the door as he
followed them out the door. These are clearly many different visual signs of intoxication that
should have been seen by the bartender. The Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5 states,
(a) As used in this section, Furnished includes barter, deliver, sell, exchange, provided
or give away. (b) A person who furnished an alcoholic beverage to a person is not liable
in a civil action for damages caused by the impairment or intoxication of the person who
was furnished the alcoholic beverage unless: (1) The person furnishing the alcoholic
beverage had actual knowledge that the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was
furnished was visibly intoxicated at the time the alcoholic beverage was furnished and (2)
The intoxication of the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was furnished was a
proximate cause of the death, injury, or damage alleged in the complaint. (Morton, 2014)
Based on this information this makes Mr. Patrick Gibbs, OMalleys Tavern and John Daniels
liable for the actions that took place because of the visible intoxication and the actions that took
place after Mr. Hard left the tavern. Though the is a chain of causation can be broken it is
possible that Mr. Hard did so by causing a criminal act making Mr. Hard liable for the actions
that took place that night after leaving the tavern.
Biblical Worldview
The Biblical worldview bears on the answer to the question of who is liable for the
actions that took place on the night of July 28, 2007. Does the criminal acts of Mr. Hard break
the chain of causation? With the biblical worldview of intoxication and criminal act of Mr. Hard
there is a possible break in the chain of causation. The Bible states many facts about intoxication
or becoming drunk by wine that should be taken to heart. In Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker,

Courtroom Observation: White v. Hard

strong drink a brawler, and whosoever is intoxicated by it is not wise. This basically states that
alcohol is something that can cause emotional pain to someone and by becoming drunk by it can
cause rage and that person who gives into the mocking is not wise. This is exactly what Mr. Hard
was doing he was drinking because of the pain from his ex-fianc leaving him and marrying Mr.
White and made an unwise decision, which then lead to a criminal act. Another example of this
in the Bible is Ephesians 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be
filled with the Spirit. Do not get drunk with alcoholic beverage, but instead fill yourself with the
Spirit this is what the Bible tells us to do, but Mr. Hard did the opposite he did something that
would be displeasing to the Lord because He disobedience. Mr. Hard in this case has done the
opposite of what it says in the Bible on how one should behave. This is how the biblical
worldview bears on the situation that is at hand giving answers to the questions before the court.
According to the biblical worldview this is a good method for resolving disputes because
you are given you chance to discuss with many knowledgeable people what you think is right
and why you may think it is right without having abuse from the other person. In other words it
is a good way to rationally resolve a dispute. In the chapter of 23 of Exodus there is a lot of talk
about law and how you should not follow others and to not be partial to someone because of their
status. This is how resolving disputes should be, but there is always someone who is bias to the
situation or a person.
Conclusion
Overall, Mr. Hard should be held responsible for his actions because he preformed a
criminal act which caused everything. Mr. Patrick Gibbs and OMalleys Tavern would have
been the ones to be held liable based on the Dram Shop Act of Indiana, but based on the
information Mr. Hard broke the chain of causation by preforming a criminal act of operating a

Courtroom Observation: White v. Hard

vehicle while he was visibly intoxicated and caused death to another human being. This criminal
act of intoxication really comes into play in the biblical worldview as being something that
should never happen unless it is being drunk in the Spirit as stated in the essay. The biblical
worldview should be a method used while resolving disputes, but it should not be the only
method that can be put in place when being a deciding factor.

Courtroom Observation: White v. Hard

References
Morton, H. (2014). Dram Shop Liability State Statutes. Retrieved from

http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/dram-shop-liability-statestatutes.aspx.
Zondervan Publishing House (Grand Rapids, Mich.). (1999). The Holy Bible: Updated New
American Standard Bible: containing the Old Testament and the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House.