Read a case and reflect on it - Research Paper Example

Kristi A. Bailey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Topline Restaurants, Inc. Kristi A. Bailey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Topline Restaurants, Inc., dba Luckys Grille & Billiards et al., Defendants-Appellees, Mid-Continent Insurance Company, Interventor- Appellee.No. 11AP-359SummaryThe plaintiff is an accident victim who claims that he was run over in Lucky’s parking lot. The complainant demanded compensation from the bar. As such, the bar’s insurer, Mid-Continent, was sucked into the case since they were the ones to make the payment if the victim succeeded in his quest.

The victim filed a case in the trial court, but lost due to lack of substantial evidence against the bar for any wrong doing and the fact that the insurance policy did not cover such incidences. Unsatisfied with the ruling, the victim went ahead to appeal the judgment of the lower court, but the appeal court upheld the ruling citing lack of evidence.Factual Issues Raised By the CaseThe case brings to the table several facts that include:i. The plaintiff had the right to file for an appeal as he felt the trial court did not do him justice ii.

The plaintiff’s claim that Doty left the bar while highly intoxicated with alcohol cannot be proveniii. The evidence that had been presented before the appeal court indicated that the defendant had no obligation to the victim.iv. The appellate court used the same facts that the trial court used to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.v. The movant contradicted his statements thus putting his arguments into question.The Holding and Result of the CourtThe court did not find any of the parties enjoined in the case liable for the events that occurred.

More so, the appellate court affirmed the verdict of the lower court; the court maintained that the lower court was right to vindicate the bar from taking responsibility of the drunk driver’s actions. According to the appellate court, the trial court did not err in withholding that there is no coverage under the Commercial General Liability section in Mid-Continents policies. It also upheld the lower court’s ruling that Lucky’s did not in any way endanger the life of the driver, the victim, or its employees; hence Lucky’s Grille & Billiards had no obligation to cater for the mover’s claims.

Summary of the Court’s RulingThe court ruled that Lucky’s Grille & Billiards’ insurer, Mid-Continent Insurance Company, did not have to foot the plaintiff’s bills because he complainant failed to put Lucky’s in charge of the situation. Despite the fact that the accident occurred in the bar’s packing lot, there is no evidence linking the bar to the accident. The appellant’s claims that Doty left the bar intoxicated, and hence unfit to drive, could not be proven since employees at Lucky’s could not confirm the same.

The fact that the bar could not be linked to the incident means that its insurer was also not party to the claims. In addition, even if the plaintiff proved that the bar was responsible, Mid-Continent would be absolved of any claims since its insurance policies do not cater for customers after leaving the bar. The courts were, therefore, right in their rulings.Insufficient evidence can never be used to make a conviction in court. Every claim has to be supported by concrete evidence if it is to be upheld.

Attachments: Court Of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District, Franklin County: Kristi A. Bailey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Topline Restaurants, Inc.