 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin v. Marciano4/27/2005
tles strewn about the front and back lawns." This observation is not entirely consistent with defendant's attempt to minimize the amount of alcohol consumption at the party. It is not in dispute that defendant knew there was alcohol at the party she was hosting for her underage daughter and her daughter's underage friends. Many other questions of fact do remain, however, about what defendant knew and what precautions, if any, she took to protect the underage guests.
Also in dispute are the nature of Okere's supervening actions. After a bench trial, a Superior Court justice found Okere not guilty of felony assault but guilty of disorderly conduct.The standard in a criminal case requires the state to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil standard, on the other hand, is for plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Okere, a co-defendant, intentionally hit plaintiff at Marciano's behest.
In summary, the fact-finder below must resolve how much of a role the defendant played in procuring alcohol to the minors at the party; what actions, if any, she took to protect her guests from foreseeable harm; and to what extent Okere's intervening action severed the causal effect of the defendant's actions. Also in dispute are the following, more specific, inquiries: how much knowledge did the defendant have of the fight earlier in the evening between Marciano and plaintiff's friends; what efforts did the defendant make to monitor the activities of her underage guests, including their consumption of intoxicating beverages. Undoubtedly, in this case many factual questions remain in dispute that must be resolved before the defendant is found to have negligently caused the plaintiff's injuries.
Conclusion
In the context of this case, we hold that the defendant had a duty to protect her guests from unreasonable harm by other guests and third persons. Factual questions remain about whether the defendant breached her duty of care and whether Okere's conduct was a foreseeable supervening cause that severed the causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court. The record shall be remanded to the Superior Court.
Justice Flaherty did not participate.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|