The trial of Terry Vickers v. Sandy Hearst. Sandy Hearst claims that Dana Ivy had been drunk, which ended up causing a car collision on the morning of December 17. the defendant states that Dana Ivy was not drunk, as well as that alcohol was not the cause of this accident that took place at the intersection of Justice and Eagle street. This accident caused injuries to Terry Vickers.
Terry Vickers wants to sue Sandy Hearst for pain, suffering, in addition lost wages, Sandy Hearst is the host of a party that took place on the night of December 16, when one host a party, it is their duty to be sure that those who consume alcohol are not over consuming, plus this did not cause an accident that causes injuries to others. Dana Ivy will testify that she was not drunk and that the cause of the accident was because she was tired not drunk, Sandy Hearst will testify that she did not over serve or force drinks on anyone at the party.
The plaintiff will try to adverse these statements, but their testimony will not be as convincing. The information that will be presented will give facts that prove that Sandy Hearst is not liable for terry Vickers damages. According to Dana Ivy, also Sandy Hearst, Dana had not only drank a little alcohol Dana Ivy also had eaten lots of food at the party, this means that Dana Ivy didn’t only drink, she also ate food at the party, although I was drinking, “there was lots of food and I ate some of that”. This means Dana Ivy ate some of that food at the party, if Dana Ivy ate some food the food would have cut the effect of the alcohol.
Dana Ivy, and Sandy Hearst both say that there were other options for beverages than just alcohol. As I stated in my witness statement I did not push drinks on anyone that attended the party 1 hosted, “I may have offered Dana Ivy a drink or two at the party, but no more than | offered anyone else”. Sandy Hearst may have offered a couple of drinks, but she was offering everyone, not just Dana Ivy, in addition there were other beverages for non drinkers. This means that Sandy Hearst did not push drinks on anyone that attended her party on the night of December sixteenth.
Sandy Hearst states that Dana Ivy acted like anyone would at this kind of function. I never saw Dana acts out of the ordinary at my party, all I saw was “Dana just talked also acted like anyone else would at this kind of function”. This means that Dana Ivy was acting normal and not like she was drunk at the party, with the thirty plus people at the party. This all means that there was no way you could say that Dana Ivy was clearly drunk because she was acting like the thirty plus people at the party. No one knows exactly if Sandy Hearst knew that Dana Ivy drove to the party. Dana Ivy and Lee Porter arrived together at the party.
Lee Porter states” we arrived at eleven o’clock but it took us a while to find a place to park”. This means that either Lee Porter or Dana Ivy could have driven to the party there was no way to know who drove. This all means that there was no way for Sandy Hearst to know who drove to the party so she thought that Lee Porter would leave with Dana Ivy. Plaintiff Terry Vickers argues that Sandy Hearst is liable for Dana Ivy’s damages. The plaintiff will claim that Sandy Hearst is liable because Dana Ivy was clearly drunk. In a Terry Vickers witness statement she says “Ivy was mumbling badly.
Ivy had trouble standing up straight. Ivy was clearly drunk” Terry Vickers claims that Dana ivy was clearly drunk, however Dana ivy did attend a party which she had consumed some alcohol she had also consumed lots of food which would cut the effect of the alcohol. Also in Terry Vickers statement she also says “Ivy was crying at the time and refused to take the chemical sobriety tests”. So how does Terry Vickers know Dana Ivy was clearly drunk. She doesn’t. Terry Vickers is wrong in sueing Sandy Hearst because Sandy Hearst is clearly not liable for Dana Ivy damages.
Sandy hears is clearly not liable for Dana Ivy damages. Dana Ivy was not drunk she was tired and missed the stop sign, Dana Ivy had eaten Lots of food at the party which cuts the effect of alcohol. Sandy Hearst didn’t push drinks she offered other drinks for non drinkers. Lastly Sandy did Not know that Dana Ivy drove to the party. Had Sandy Hearst pushed drinks or over served Dana Ivy then she would be liable but Sandy Hearst did not push drinks or over serve alcohol, therefore Sandy Hearst is not liable for Dana Ivy careless actions.
