Court Religion a Biblical Perspective

Court Religion

A Biblical Perspective on a Moot Appeals Court Trial

Questions of statutory law are often viewed as separate from religious affairs. And where the protection of civil rights and the separation of church and state are concerned, they are separate. However, organized religion and biblical theology are driven by laws and regulations that have historically informed human societies and civil order. The relevance of these ideas to parsing through complex legal questions is explored hereafter with a balance of objectivity and caution, and is presented in application to the fictional case of Debra White v. Patrick Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern. White v. Gibbs is presented as an Indiana Appeals Court case and is argued in a Moot Court Tournament dated to 2008. The case offers a set of equally compelling rhetorical arguments that might better be illuminated through the application of a Christian legalist's worldview.

Moot Court Case Overview:

Before proceeding to discuss the relevance of the Christian worldview to the case in question, it is appropriate to provide a concise summary of the facts of the case in question. The appeal in this case, brought by the appellant and owner of O'Mally's Tavern, Patrick Gibbs, finds the defense asking for rejudgement in a circuit court decision against him. The decision would allege that Gibbs' bar knowingly served an intoxicated client (Mr. Hart) before allowing said client to leave of his own recourse and get behind the wheel of his car.

Further details in the case indicate that Mr. Hart had been engaged in a conflict with his ex-wife and her new husband, Mr. White. Mr. Hart had allegedly engaged, attempted to assault, and threatened to further assault Mr. White, leading to his departure from the tavern. Mr. Hart fell from his stool, staggered and fell to the floor when attempting to strike Mr. White prior to his departure. Mrs. White is said also to have stated frequently during the confrontation that she feared Mr. Hart -- who has a history of violence, abusive behavior and drunk driving -- might intentionally attempt to harm Mr. White. Consequently, Mr. Hart sped off in his vehicle, striking numerous cars in the parking lot of O'Malley's Tavern, sideswiping numerous cars on Broadway and, half a mile from the tavern, ramming into Mr. White's car, causing the death of Mr. White.

The basic facts of the case find that the appellee argues that the tavern was responsible for the proximate cause of the accident which claimed Mr. White's life. This is because, in the argument of the plaintiff's counsel, it was reasonably foreseeable that allowing Mr. Hart to depart from the bar and drive in his intoxicated state could lead to an accident, injury or fatality. Here, it may be said that a reasonable person could also foresee that in his state of aggression, it could very well have been Mr. Hart's intent to inflict injury on Mr. White. Therefore, the plaintiff's counsel argues that the bar's serving of the already 'visibly intoxicated' Mr. Hart was 'a proximal cause' but not necessary 'the proximal cause' for the death of Mr. White. To support this point, the appellee makes the argument that the assault inside the bar was not 'an intervening act in the chain of causation.'

In its defense, the appellant argues that the decision charging Gibbs and the tavern should be granted a rejudgement. This is based primarily on the argument that where a 'malicious criminal act' has occurred that this is a superceding element over the claim of 'reasonably foreseeable' events. In other words, contrary to the claims of the plaintiff, even if Mr. Hart's decision to drive intoxicated was reasonably foreseeable by the bartender at O'Malley's, it was not foreseeable that the client would consequently engage in a 'malicious' rather an accidental criminal act. In this case, that means that the 'malicious' nature of Mr. Hart's acts as made presumable by the assault inside the tavern -- presuming we interpret that these actions were pointedly malicious -- is actually an intervening act in the chain of causation that removes the tavern's responsibility as the proximal cause for Mr. White's death.

The appellant would invoke the case of Fast Eddie's v. Hall (1997), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals would hear the appeal of Fast Eddie's defense where Fast Eddie's Tavern was identified as being responsible as the proximal cause for the death of a patron (Hall) who was intoxicated and who was murdered by another intoxicated patron (Lamb). As a basis for the finding that the decision against O'Malley's Tavern should be granted rejudgement, the counsel for the defense would provide the central argument from Fast Eddie's v. Hall stating that "unlike automobile accidents which occur as the result of alcoholic beverage consumption, assault and murder are intentional acts of volition which are the result of an assailant's deliberate design. Welch, 488 N.E.2d at 390. Here, Hall died because Lamb deliberately decided to kill her. This criminal intent would have been present whether or not Lamb was intoxicated. Thus, despite Lamb's contention, we find as a matter of law that Hall's death was the result of Lamb's deliberate design and volitional act and not his intoxication. The trial court, therefore, improperly denied Fast Eddie's motion for summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause. As a result, we reverse the trial court's order denying Fast Eddie's motions for summary judgment and instruct the trial court to enter summary judgment in its favor." (Baker, p. 1)

This reversal may serve as the likeliest guide for the findings in the present moot court case, even though there is a troubling gray area to be considered in the coefficient 'unlike automobile accidents' and the use of the word 'assault' as a counterpoint. In the present case, both circumstances are present and suggest that the question of malicious intent is an essential challenge in either accepting or refuting the claims made by the counsel for the plaintiff. It is thus that I ultimately find myself siding with the appellant, even if in some respect it seems apparent that the tavern had some knowledge of Mr. Hart's intoxication. Little discussion is made -- indeed one of the presiding judges even offers this as a criticism for the moot lawyers -- of the presence or absence of sufficient evident to say that Mr. Hart was visibly intoxicated.

Moreover, it may be sufficient to reflect on the evidence of Mr. Hart's behavior in the preceding moments to the fatal collision to suggest that the accident was a malicious criminal act. This would supercede the appellee's claim that it was reasonably foreseeable that this accident would occur. While it is somewhat compelling that the appellee's counsel notes several clear indications that Mr. Hart lacked control over his vehicle and therefore may have only inadvertently rammed Mr. White's vehicle, the presence of malice as observed by a reasonable person may be said to be an intervening event in the chain of causation.

Relevance of a Biblical Worldview:

The biblical worldview has some relevance to parsing through a legal question of this nature. As the text by Thompson (2003) argues, the biblical worldview is not one which supposes to supplant legal considerations in favor of religious ones. Instead, it is the view that the institutions created by society such as the courts and the legislation girding them are to be respected as an appendage of God's law. Accordingly, Thompson remarks that "sin and morality are both defined in terms of God's law, and redemption is afforded by legal mechanisms. As I stated before, redemption is meaningless apart from law. And if we understand religion in its historical sense - as the duties we owe to God alone - it is law which defines what those duties are. And while stewardship and dominion will be guided in the practical realm by excellence more than legal considerations, yet it is law which provides the context in which all stewardship and dominion activities occur." (Thompson, p. 1)

This helps us to reflect on cases such as White v. Gibbs with a greater sense of appreciation for the ethical duty fulfilled by legal statute. This case finds us wrestling with the question of the common law responsibility of the tavern and ultimately brings the highly spiritual questions of malice and intent into focus. In Thompson's view, legal mechanisms created by man are designed to defend the moral order put into place by God. Thus, in a BiblicalWorldview, the courts play a central role determining whether all proper ethical considerations have been applied to the technical exploration of legal precedent.