Sullivan and his friend William are having a quiet drink togeter one evening in the Tennessee Tavern when they got into an argument with four men at the next table. Who were inbrieated and looking for a fight. There was a brief scuffle when one of the four men attacked Sullivan. The scuffle was broken up by two members of the tavern staff. The tavern owner had the four men ejected by the book door of the tavern. He then told Sullivan and Williams to leave by the front door. They did so to be confronted by the four who vicously attacked them. Causing serious injury to Sullivan. Sullivan brought an action against the owners of teh tavern alleging that he was partly responsible for causing the injuries. Should Sillivan succeed?

Below I gave a reponses to this question: Please provide a detailed response in why you agree or disagree and ask a though provoking question for each listed: 1. Sullivan and his friend William were escorted out through a separate exit from the four attackers. They were essentially moved away from the threat as best as possible while respecting other members of the tavern's feelings of safety. The owner of the tavern could have assessed that it was a four versus two, resulting in an unfair advantage for Sullivan and William, and could have called the police to handle the situation, possibly anticipating the men assaulting Sullivan and William after the tavern owner had already served them much alcohol. Sullivan and William willingly engaged in a conversation that a reasonable person could have foreseen was going to end in violence, which it did. Duty of care was present in this situation because the tavern owner is responsible for the safety of his customers. The breach of duty of care, however, hinged on whether it was the responsible action to take and if the owner should have called the police. As stated, it was responsible to remove all parties involved to avoid further conflict with other customers or staff; the police arguably were not needed at that specific time because it was, as described, a brief scuffle. Therefore, the defendant can argue that Sullivan was negligent in that respect, and the tavern owner should not face repercussions for his actions that protected the safety of his staff, his customers, and himself. In my opinion, Sullivan should not succeed.

2.Kick off our examination, we need to originally deconstruct the substance of the subsection and examine the case study topic. Tort law focuses on the notion of holding people accountable for their acts, especially if they cause injury to others. In the depicted situation, the tavern's members acted quickly, effectively ending the brawl and dismissing the troublemakers from the premises. This overwhelmingly demonstrates the establishment's dedication to safeguarding the safety of its customers. Furthermore, the bar owner took strong action, ejecting the wrongdoers and instructing them to go via the back door, a purposeful negotiation designed to keep them apart. These acts convince themselves the owner's proactive approach to preserving the soundness of Sullivan and his companion, Williams. The choice to steer Sullivan and John Williams through an alternative departure underscore the owner's desire to limit potential risks. Given the pub owner's extensive attempts to protect the guests, it is clear that there was no malevolent intent or misconduct on his part. Sullivan's pursuit of a legal claim is fragile, with the circumstantial character of the reasons. Unless new evidence emerges that changes the story, the present data clearly imply that the bar owner did all reasonably could to secure the safety of Sullivan and his companion. As a result, Sullivan's chances of winning this case are slim.

3.

To begin we must dissect the meaning of this chapter and the case study question being posed. Tort law is to hold civilians accountable for their actions if they are to do harm to others. In this case the members of the tavern intervened and broke up the fight as well as kicked out the members who were causing harm. This clearly shows that the establishment intends to keep its customers safe. Furthermore the owner kicked the perpetrators out of the tavern and chose to make them use the back door. The owner had Sullivan and Williams exit through a different door which was to keep them separated. The owner's actions showed no intentions of wrongdoing and he took almost every action to protect them. I do not believe Sullivan will succeed because the grounds on this case are very circumstantial. Unless there is more to the story it clearly shows that the Tavern owner did all he could to keep Sullivan and his friend out of harm's way.