Submit an IRAC for the following fact pattern

Steps to Follow:

First: review the following fact pattern:

• Steven owns a bar, The Lucky Duck. The Lucky Duck employs five bartenders, all of whom he has provided training on mixing drinks and general employment issues. It also employs a security person on weekends, when the patrons are a bit rowdier. The Lucky Duck has posted signs in the restroom giving patrons the phone number for local cab companies in the event they are too intoxicated to drink home.
• One Saturday night, Michael went to The Lucky Duck with a group of friends to celebrate his promotion. His group of friends was ordering rounds of shots from all the bartenders, and large beers all night, toasting to Michael's recent success. As the night went on, the group became more intoxicated, and rowdier. At 1am, one of the bartenders, Melissa, told Michael that it was his "last round," as he was staggering when he walked up to the bar. After finishing that beer, Michael had his friend go buy him another beer from a different bartender, Sally. Shortly after he finished his last drink, Michael decided that he was ready to head home. Security watched as Michael walked out towards the parking lot, muttering "what a drunk."
• On his way home, Michael ran a stop sign and ran into Mindy, who was driving home from a late shift as a nurse at the local hospital. Mindy was severely injured with a concussion, fractured ribs, internal bleeding, a broken arm, and lacerations to her face and hands, and contusions where her seat belt dug into her. Mindy was forced to take several months off work to recover, and her hospital bills were large.
• Mindy sought out an attorney, who told her that she should sue Michael. Michael however, lost his job after the accident, and was drowning in debt. Therefore, the attorney told Mindy that she should also sue The Lucky Duck for over serving Michael.
• You should discuss the liability of The Lucky Duck and any potential outcome to a suit against The Lucky Duck using IRAC. You should use the case law and facts provided in your analysis.

Second: read the following article on Dram Shop Law in Minnesota:

Dram Shop Law in Minnesota, by Vicki Hruby. Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, PLLP. Retrieved from:

http://jlolaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dram_shop_materials_2011.pdf

This article discusses dram shop liability and the three cases you have to read for this assignment:

Third: read the three cases listed above to determine what rules apply in a dram shop liability action.

Fourth: Using the IRAC method, determine whether the Lucky Duck should be held liable for Mindy's injuries. You should provide the issue, state the rules you obtain from the cases provided, analyze the facts considering the case law, and then draw a conclusion, using the IRAC method.

Format: your paper should be formatted as follows: Not a typical IRAC format

1. Write the caption "Issue," then include the issue. for this assignment the issue is "Is there an agency relationship if there was no compensation paid"
2. Write the caption "Rule," then include the rule from the first case (Rambaum), as well as the proper Bluebook citation to the case (Rambaum v. Swisher, 423 N.W.2d 68, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 412 (Minn. Ct. App., 1988)
3. Write the caption "Analysis," then provide your analysis of the Rambaum rule to the fact pattern.
4. Write the caption "Rule," then include the rule from the second case (Mjos), as well as the proper Bluebook citation to the case (Mjos v. Howard Lake, 287 Minn. 427).
5. Write the caption "Analysis," then provide your analysis of the Mjos rule to the fact pattern.
6. Write the caption "Rule," then include the rule from the third case (Trail), as well as the proper Bluebook citation to the case (Trail v. Elk River, 286 Minn. 380)
7. Write the caption "Analysis," then provide your analysis of the Trail rule to the fact pattern.
8. Write the caption "Conclusion," then provide your ultimate answer to the issue presented, based on your analysis.

NOTE:

• Remember to analyze the fact pattern given about the Lucky Duck. You are not deciding whether the cases you had to read were correct. You are taking the rules of law from those cases and applying them to the Lucky Duck fact pattern to reach a conclusion to the issue of whether the Lucky Duck can be held liable to Mindy for her injuries.
• Ignore the repealed statutes as found in Mjos and Trail cases (Minn. Stat. 340.14, 340.73). The relevant statutes to focus on are Minn. Stat. 340A.801, 340A.502.