11 Aug Module 04 Written Assignment – Distinguishing Cases to Enh

Module 04 Written Assignment – Distinguishing Cases to Enhance Analysis Module 04 Written Assignment – Distinguishing Cases to Enhance AnalysisTime LineModuleAssignment01 02 03Analyzing Using IRAC04Distinguishing Cases to Enhance Analysis05Explaining What You’ve Learned Through a Legal Memorandum06 Purpose of Assignment: The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate distinguishing case law from a given fact pattern.Course Competency: Distinguish case law from specific fact patterns.Instructions:Content:For this assignment you will be preparing your own analysis of our fact pattern from last week in light of new cases. The cases are located here:Englund v. MN CA Partners/MN Joint Ventures, 555 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) Koehnen v. Dufuor, 590 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 1999) Kunza v. Pantze, 527 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) As a reminder, the following is your set of facts to analyze: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 seatbelt 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 overserving Michael.The cases you have been provided are cases to distinguish from our fact pattern. You should explain the ways in which the cases can be distinguished from our fact pattern in terms of the law and the facts.Format:Your final assignment should be formatted as follows:Write the name of the case being analyzedSummarize the facts from the case and holding of the caseExplain the ways in which the law is distinguishable from the case law provided in comparison to our caseExplain the ways in which the facts are distinguishable from the case law provided in comparison to our case factsYour assignment should have proper spelling and grammar throughout, and use proper Bluebook formatting of citations.Resources:Microsoft WordGrading Rubric: