Baatz v. Arrow Bar case brief summary
452 MN.W.2d 138 (1990)
CASE FACTS
The injured parties were riding a motorcycle when the driver's car swerved over the center lane and hit them causing serious injuries to the injured parties. The injured parties filed an action against the bar where the driver had been earlier in the evening of the accident and its owners and associated individuals, claiming that the bar's negligence in serving the driver alcohol when he was already intoxicated contributed to the accident. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bar owners and the associated individual.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the bar owners and associated individual.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
452 MN.W.2d 138 (1990)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial
Circuit, Minnehaha County (South Dakota) granted summary judgment in
favor of defendants, bar owners and associated individual, in an
action filed by plaintiff injured parties to recover for injuries
they sustained when they were struck by an automobile while riding on
a motorcycle. The injured parties appealed.CASE FACTS
The injured parties were riding a motorcycle when the driver's car swerved over the center lane and hit them causing serious injuries to the injured parties. The injured parties filed an action against the bar where the driver had been earlier in the evening of the accident and its owners and associated individuals, claiming that the bar's negligence in serving the driver alcohol when he was already intoxicated contributed to the accident. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bar owners and the associated individual.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court affirmed, finding that there was no indication that the bar owners or the associated individual had personally served an alcoholic beverage to the driver on the day of the accident.
- Nor was there any evidence indicating that the bar owners treated the corporation in any way that would produce the injustices and inequitable consequences necessary to justify piercing the corporate veil.
- In fact, the court found that the only evidence offered was otherwise.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the bar owners and associated individual.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
No comments:
Post a Comment