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 Ms. Marie Beaumont and why she is NOT responsible. 1. What is the Issue? What is the Rule? 2. Is Marie liable in damages to Charlie, Jamie and Tom? 3. What can be argued in favor of liability on behalf of Charlie, Jamie and Tom? 4. What can be argued on behalf of Marie and against the imposition of liability