Case Study : Blizzard Resorts Inc

To sum up, based on the law of negligence, the issues and precedents, Rebecca could win this case by legal process. Because the defendant ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant owns a duty of care to Rebecca, the restaurant has breached that duty of care;

MGM Resorts International was incorporated in Delaware on January 29, 1986 as MGM Grand, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Kirk

1) Yes. Defendant owes no duty to protect Adair from the harm he alleges because an inherent risk of rock climbing includes the negligence of co-participants as well as the danger of falling.

 (b)   If Silverline are found to be negligent, for what losses would Emma be able to claim

2. Applying the facts you have from the case problem above only, lay out a case for negligence against the hotel. Use the elements to outline the case. Start with the first element, explain what facts you have for or against that element, and then continue through the five elements of negligence. If you do not have enough facts to make your case, explain what facts you would need to have in order to support a case of negligence. (Points : 10)

This additional evidence showed that Days Inn did not exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises safe. The court concluded that the prior criminal activity was sufficiently substantially similar to Matt’s incident and the landowner was negligent in not taking reasonable precautions to protect its guests. Id. at 795

To prove the negligence of the Big Slope Resort, Ben and Jerry must prove five elements of negligence. First, they must prove the resort’s duty. In this instance, duty is clear as Ben and Jerry are business visitors for whom the premises should be reasonably safe. Second, breach of duty must be proven. The resort’s failure to inspect the lift for guests prior to the shutdown satisfies that requirement. Third, the breach of duty must have caused damages. Ben and Jerry suffered physical injuries as a result of being stranded. Fourth, the breach of duty must have been the proximate cause of the damages. In other words, the breach of duty must be closely linked with the resulting damages. For this case, the actions of the resort were the only cause for the injuries. There were no other factors separating the cause and effect. Finally, there must be damage or injury. Ben and Jerry suffered from frostbite and other injuries, which qualify for this final criteria of

Facts: This case was filed by Brian Kopeikin against Moonlight Basin alleging that Moonlight Basin did not fulfill its duty of reasonable care. On the day of the incident, conditions on the mountain were perfect. The skies were clear, there was little to no wind, and the snow was powder. Mr. Kopeikin, a “very experienced skier” (p.2), was skiing Upper Elkhorn when he came upon unmarked and unnatural hazards. These hazards allegedly were the result of negligent acts by Moonlight. The ski run, Upper Elkhorn, intersected an unmarked and unnamed cat track that was lined with boulders. The cat track was designed in a way that did not allow Kopeikin to see the hazardous boulder field ahead of him. The boulder field spanned over fifty feet and was, “comprised of large, craggy, and sharp rocks” (p.3). It is important to note that this boulder field was allegedly unnatural and resulted because of the way Moonlight graded the cat track. It also needs to be acknowledged that there was no warning to skiers that they were coming up on a hazard. When Kopeikin came up to the hazard, he was skiing under control at a safe speed. As he made his way across the cat track, he fell into the boulder field. Again, it is alleged that he had no opportunity to avoid the hazard, and he sustained serious injuries as

The Plan of Action that I would provide to Peters and her team is as follows:

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

After taking into account the facts and the laws applicable to the case of Mr. Newhouse, the issue of whether Lion’s Paint Store owed Mr. Newhouse any duty of care; it is clear that under Michigan law governing premises liability, the highest of care is owed to an invitee who enters upon a premises by either expressed or implied invitation for the purpose of commercial benefit to the premises owner. The slip and fall incident resulting in Mr. Newhouse sustaining injuries falls under a breach of legal duty by Lion’s Paint Store to ensure the safety of invitees from unreasonable risk of harm therefore, the paint store is liable for negligence on their part by failure to inspect the premises at reasonable times to determine circumstances that

Rosa could make two types of negligence based on the situation of the accident. First, she could place a case of proximate cause. This kind of negligence characterizes a conduct that poses

Can you elect to recover your damages from the resort only, even though Tex and Rex were primarily responsible for your injuries?

Today’s risk management environment is more dynamic than ever. More often, companies are embracing risk management’s undeniable opportunity to improve business results. The emergence of this “true business partner” relationship requires that risk management decisions and processes rely more on strategic planning, rigorous analytical processes, and collaborative internal and external partnerships. Knowing which actions and relationships will drive down your costs of risk demands a deep and comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence it.

Cendant Corporation, one of the world’s largest hotel and real estate franchises was known as the largest accounting fraud before Enron. Cendant Corporation was created in 1997 when Hospitality Franchise Systems (HFS), Inc. merged with Comp-U-Card international (CUC). Chairman Walter Forbes and Vice-chairman Kirk Shelton were the perpetrators to a decade long accounting and securities fraud. The day after Cendant exposed evidence of accounting irregularities the corporations stock and convertible bonds lost nearly $14 Billion (Morgenson, 2004). This paper will address the issues that went wrong with Cendant and how the crimes fit into to Friedrichs’ typologies.