Proximate Cause in Civil Damages Act Cases

March 1, 2009 at 1:28 pm (Journal of Law & Practice)

2 Wm. Mitchell J.L. & Prac. 6

By: Professor Mike Steenson[1]
I. Introduction

Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.,[2] arose out of the death of 24-year-old Michael Riley.[3] Mr. Riley (“Riley”) jumped from a bridge after being stopped for DWI by a Minnesota State Highway Patrol officer who arrested, but did not handcuff Riley.[4] His family and girlfriend sued Twin Town Bowl under the Civil Damages Act,[5] alleging that Riley was illegally served alcohol there, that the illegal sale led to his intoxication, and that his intoxication caused his death.[6] Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

Crawford in Minnesota: The First Five Years

March 1, 2009 at 10:55 am (Journal of Law & Practice)

2 Wm. Mitchell J.L. & Prac. 5

By: Ted Sampsell-Jones[1]
I. Introduction

American criminal trials are governed by a variety of rules that protect criminal defendants. Such rules protect both innocent defendants and guilty defendants. Protection of the latter is a necessary but perhaps regrettable consequence of protecting the former. Pro-defense legal rules occasionally result in guilty defendants going free, but that result is said to be warranted because the same rules protect innocents from wrongful convictions. The tradeoff is justified by the traditional Anglo-American principle, made famous by Blackstone: “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”[2] Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.