Case law is part of sources of law in many countries, and many judges make judgments basing on the decisions of previous judges. The case of Lumpkin, et al. v. Mellow Mushroom, et al. involves the parents of a deceased boy and Mellow Mushroom, which sales liquor. The case was filed in Court of Appeals of Georgia. The issue that was to be determined by the court was whether Mellow Mushroom was entitled to a summary judgment, and the court agreed that Mellow Mushrooms was entitled to the summary judgment.
The Court arrived at its decision after observing the facts of the case, and making a careful consideration of the laws that governed the case. The Limpkins were supposed to prove that Mellow Mushrooms had a duty to the public, and the negligent acts of the defendant had led to the death of the young man. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were supposed to prove that they suffered some damage due to the acts of the defendant.
However, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the acts of the defendant led to the death of their child. This is because there was contributory negligence on the part of their son. This is because the son accepted to be driven in a jeep that did not have a passenger’s door, and he untied his safety belt and hanged outside as the car was moving. Furthermore, the facts of the case showed that Lumpkin and Callaway had purchased other beers prior to the incident. Therefore, it was difficult to prove that the beer that they drank at Mellow Mushrooms was the one that contributed to the accident. Furthermore, the witnesses of the case failed to assert that the two were drunk when they left Mellow Mushrooms.
In conclusion, the court offered the defendant a summary judgment, and the reasoning of the court was that the defendant’s negligence was not the proximate cause that led to the death. This is according to the provisions of legislation, and the provision of common law does not support the demands of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs had a duty to prove that the negligence acts of Mellow Mushrooms was had a causal relation to the death, and that the defendant had a duty to observe.