A component of legal analysis is the notion of "dispassionate" analysis. According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, dispassionate means an individual who is not influenced by strong feeling, especially not affected by personal or emotional involvement.While many debate whether any human being can be truly dispassionate due to our inherent nature, legal analysis stands on the notion of dispassionate analysis.When analyzing a case, the analysis does not include how you "feel" about the issue.

Marie Beaumont throws a large party at her cottage an hour or so out of town. She owns a chain of wineries and supplies most of the alcoholic refreshment herself. Charlie Paylor, a renowned party animal, was invited and drives there with his friend, Jamie Singh. They both drink a considerable amount and Marie is highly amused at their crazy antics. After midnight, Charlie and Jamie leave. On the way home, they are involved in an accident with Tom in which they are all seriously injured. The most significant authority is Menow v. Honsberger and Jordan House, S.C.R. 239 (1974), in which a hotel was held partly responsible for injuries caused to a drunken patron who was thrown out of the hotel and later run over by a negligent driver on a busy highway near the hotel. Assume for purposes of this hypothetical that it is also the only relevant precedent.

Argue on behalf of Charlie, Jamie, and Tom's side (why Ms. Marie Beaumont IS liable?).

Remember to employ what you have learned regarding IRAC in organizing your argument(s).

IRAC= Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion

What's the issue?

What's the rule?

What is the application?

Conclusion why Ms. Marie Beaumont IS responsible?