Docstoc

Closing

Document Sample
Closing Powered By Docstoc
					                                        CLOSING




       YOUR Honor, I would like to thank you for your time. THE PLAINTIFF


maintains that Michelle’s Bar was negligent in the hiring of the convicted


criminal, Lee Nash. A PERSON is negligent when they fail to exercise ordinary


care. ORDINARY CARE is the degree if care which the great mass of mankind


exercises under the same or similar circumstances. A PERSON fails to exercise


ordinary care, when, without intending to do any harm, they do something or fail


to do something under circumstances in which a reasonable person would foresee


that by their action or failure to act, they would subject a person or property to an


unreasonable risk of injury and damage.


       MICHELLE WAS negligent in not checking into Nash’s background,


especially when Nash first worked for Michelle under work release privileges, and


as a result Cort Amour was exposed to “an unreasonable risk of injury and


damage.”
       THROUGH THE expert testimony of Cary Prefect – who has run her own


bar – the Y-not – since 1984 and who was the President of the Clearwater County


tavern League for two years - we learn that Michelle should have asked Nash if he


was ever convicted of a crime and then followed up on her own check.


       PREFECT BELIEVES that Lee Nash was poorly trained in dealing with


conflicts. Nash should have intervened sooner, breaking up the conflict between


Shelby and Tristan. NASH SHOULD also have been trained in verbal


confrontation and should have tried to take a verbal approach to things instead of a


violent one.


       CORT AMOUR was violently beaten up by Lee Nash without


provocation. Amour did nothing to spark such brutal violence. CORT AMOUR


was beaten with a nightstick and sustained a wired jaw and cracked ribs.


       FRANCES O’SHAUGHNESSY was at the bar that night and saw only


one bartender, Lee Nash, bartending on a Saturday, one of the busiest days of the
week. O’SHAUGHNESSY witnessed the fight and testified that Amour “looked


like she had been a few rounds in the gym afterwards.”


      JAMIE JONES also witnessed the fight and saw Nash beat Amour whilst


she was on the ground. JAMIE JONES has been in Michelle’s Bar many times


prior to this incident with a fake ID that Michelle’s lax security let through on


more than one occasion.


      MICHELLE’S BAR is clearly negligent in the hiring and training of its


employees and as a result of this negligence, Cort Amour was brutally beaten


without his consent.


      THIS CASE will be resolved by the answering of seven questions in a


special verdict form. THE FIRST question asks if Lee Nash intentionally battered


Cort Amour. OF course, your answer should be yes. OF COURSE Nash did it


intentionally, do you think s/he could break someone’s jaw and crack their ribs on


accident!? THE ANSWER to that question should clearly be yes! The second


question is just as easy to answer, it asks if the battery caused Cort amour’s
injuries. OF COURSE it did, unless his jaw broke spontaneously. THE THIRD


question asks of Michelle’s Place was negligent in the hiring, training or


supervisings of Lee Nash. YET AGAIN your answer should be yes.


MICHELLE’S PLACE does not check the backgrounds if its employees, letting


a convicted criminal tend its bar. THE BAR is also negligent in the training of its


employees. LEE NASH was not sent through any training courses in verbal


confrontation and the Internet course he took focused more on bottle tricks than


anything else. AS FURTHER proof of Michelle’s negligence, the bar let an


underage drinker into its confines over ten times with a fake ID. THE FOURTH


question asks if Michelle’s Place was the cause of Cort Amour’s injuries. YOUR


ANSWER should be yes once more. BECAUSE OF the bar’s negligence in the


hiring, supervising, and training of the convicted criminal Lee Nash, Cort Amour


was viciously and brutally battered. QUESTION SIX is only answered if you


answered question five yes, but my co council and I hope that you will answer the


question with a resounding no. IN QUESTION seven however, you are asked to
distribute percentages of blame to the various parties involved in this case: Lee


Nash, Michelle’s Place and Cort Amour. BASED ON the evidence we have given


you throughout this case, we hope that you make the right decision and distribute


the blame as follows. 0% TO Lee Nash, 100% to Michelle’s Place, and 0% to


Cort Amour. LEE NASH’S battery of Cort Amour is the direct result of


Michelle’s negligence of the hiring, training and supervising of Lee Nash.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:12/9/2011
language:
pages:5