Holly Davenport, one of Jack Daly's coworkers, invited Jack and her other colleagues to a barbecue at her house after work to celebrate the completion of a major project for one of the firm's best clients.

Suppose that instead of going to the tavern after work, Jack stopped by Holly's home to attend the barbecue. Instead of having an open bar, Holly served as the bartender for her guests. She served Jack three Whiskey Sours within an hour after his arrival. Jack became noticeably intoxicated and interacted in a belligerent manner with another guest, who suggested that Jack stop drinking and go home. Jack replied, "Don't worry; I'll be leaving soon." Holding his car keys, he turned to Holly and asked her for "one more for the road." Against her better judgment, Hollyserved him another drink. After finishing his drink, Jack stood up, grabbed his car keys, and headed out the door.

As in the scenario above, Jack got into his car to drive home. About a mile from Holly's, he failed to stop at a stop sign and hit Raul Padua in the crosswalk, causing the injuries above.Padua has sued both Jack Daly and Holly Davenport.

Instructions: In two or three paragraphs, analyze Padua's claims against Holly Davenport, identifying the new material facts, how that changes both the issue and the rule, apply the new rule to these changed facts, and articulate a well-reasoned conclusion that flows from your analysis.