Legal Aspect in the Case of ‘The Happy Hour Sports Bar’

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Case background
The plaintive
The definitive
The claim
Problem in the case
Plaintive argument
Definitive argument
Decision

Case background

The case is a civil action and, hence, falls under the civil law in Canada. It falls under the civil law because it involves a dispute between people. The dispute concerns bodily injuries sustained after a fall from the action of another person. The man can bring a civil action to the court to demand a remedy for the bodily injuries he suffered after Bertha pushed heavily into the street, he fell on the parking meter and injured his head.

The plaintive

The plaintive is the man who suffered the head injury after he fell on the parking meter after being pushed by Bertha, the employee of The Happy Hour Sports Bar. The man can sue Bertha and her employer and file a pleading for compensation against the injury he suffered.

The definitive

The definitive in the civil action are Bertha and her employer. They must defend themselves against the accusation the man may bring upon them in a court of law.

The claim

The man can make a claim of compensation for the head injury he got after Bertha pushed him into the street and he fell on the parking meter. He may require Bertha and her employer to remedy him for the cost of treating the injury.

Problem in the case

The man in the case is obviously intoxicated and demands to buy beer. Bertha declines the request and advises him to go home. He becomes angry and raises his voice prompting Bertha to put an arm lock and a headlock on him. The man breaches the contract by causing a scene at the bar and interrupting the other customers. Hence, his claim about the behavior of the bar’s employee is problematic. On the other hand, the bar employee was keeping the order in the bar by refusing to sell beer to an already intoxicated man who threatened to hit him.

Plaintive argument

Bertha used excessive force to kick him out of the bar. The aggressiveness of the bar employee caused him to sustain serious head injuries. He made the man suffer and wanted both Bertha and her employer to compensate him. The man thinks that Bertha should have been gentle with him even if he has had to evict him from the bar. The heavy push to the street was not necessary and showed how aggressive the bar employee was with a patron.

Definitive argument

The man was being disorderly in the bar premises and, hence, Bertha took action of declining to sell beer to him and offered to call a cab for him. After he refused to take Bertha’s offer and insisted on getting the beer, she took the appropriate step of evicting him from the bar but he refused to comply and returned. Thus, she was forced to escort him to the door to ensure he left the premises and, hence, her action was within the law as provided in Canada’s Liquor Act that allows a disorderly person to be evicted from a bar.

Decision

The man was wrong in demanding to buy beer in his intoxicated state and behaved disorderly by pounding on the bar with his fist and raising his voice to Bertha. He also failed to obey orders to leave the bar. On the other hand, Bertha did the right thing for refusing to sell beer to the man in his intoxicated state and offering to call a cab for him. However, pushing the man into the street leading to his fall and, consequently, injuring his head was wrong. Bertha and the bar owner should pay damages for the injury caused by the fall.

Click Here To Order Now!