The five elements of negligence that apply to the case of Mr. Margrieter V. New Hotel
Monteleone, Inc are Duty, breach, cause in effect, proximal cause and harm (damage suffered as a proximal result of the defendant’s breach of duty). Duty refers to an obligation one has to another party. If duty “constrains and channels behavior in a socially responsible way” (Owen, 2007), then the
Hotel Menteloene has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect its guests from harm. Breach, an improper act or omission, can also be viewed as an element that exists in this case.
The hotel did not provide adequate security, as it did not replace the security personnel that had called in sick. It is particularly a breach if the hotel has …show more content…
The hotel uses Mr. Margrieter’s lack of clear memory of the events as a defense and his inability to return to New Orleans to identify his attackers as another defense, as he was stable enough to fly home to Denver for a Craniotomy (brain surgery). However, it does not require much in the way of mental capacity to take a flight on a commercial airline. A severe head injury and the subsequent
recovery period after the brain surgery are limiting enough. The lack of evidence of the two men abducting Mr. Margrieter is perhaps the strongest argument the hotel can use. Without such evidence, it is difficult to prove that the actions of the hotel, such as inadequate security and failure to follow procedure in locking the freight elevator, led to Mr. Margrieter’s injury. Without evidence, cause in fact and proximal cause are hard to prove.
Owen, D. (2007). The Five elements of negligence. Hoefstra Law Review, 35(4). Retrieved from http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/Academics/Journals/LawReview/lrv_issues_v35n04_i01.pdf. United States Court of Appeals, 5th District (1981). Douglas T. MARGREITER, Plaintiff-
Appellee, NEW HOTEL MONTELEONE, INC. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants. No.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The tort law section that falls into this case is negligence. Negligence is made up of three elements which determine negligence and duty of care is owed in this case State of Victoria v Bryar  44 ALJR 174.
In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their
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
Steve McKenzie a management consultant from New Jersey reflected back on his Easter Holiday trip where they stayed at The Regal Carnation Hotel in Guam. He remembered the false advertisement of the website, many missed opportunities, and the lack of management and customer service on a vacation that over promised and under delivered. He contemplated writing a letter to the Hotel owners and management, although he may not personally receive something in return, knowing he may be able to make improvements on future travelers was motivation enough.
It was decided that if the “representor gave information-or advice which was negligent he would be liable for any pecuniary or personal damage-caused”5. However the appeal was dismissed due to the fact that with “the absence of a contract or fiduciary relationship” the defendant that used a disclaimer would owe no duty of care.6 The case was significant in that claims on negligent misstatement could work if; there is a special affiliation among parties, the information provided by a party has a voluntary assumed risk, the plaintiff has to deem the information reliable, and finally the reliability of the information must be applicable.
From the beginning of this litigation, Appellant has argued that his Property was damaged by Respondent’s negligence and that he is entitled to compensation for this damage to his Property.
Overall, I think the hotel handled the complaint and discipline issue in a professional manner, while the employee tried to abuse the system. A minor infraction, which should have been handled quickly and easily, became a case that wasted time, money, and valuable court docket
This essay aims to portray each individual party’s viewpoint on the incident that occurred regarding The Macgregor Hotel and the claimants Peter and Beatrice, in addition the Crown Prosecution Court will also be scrutinising the events which took place that evening.
Liability for guests property is the hotel’s responsibility. This case explores a hotel’s liability for the property of one of its guest. The guest’s property was parked in an adjacent lot that was located next to the hotel, which other guests of the hotel had also park their oversized vehicles. In many common law states, the hotel is considered practically an insure and held liable for loss of a guest’s property - unless the property is lost or destroyed by an act of God, public enemy, or a common enemy (Jefferies & Brown, 1990, pg. 191). For a hotel,
As president of the National Association of Safety Regulators, Solomon Alvi, had booked a hotel stay for his convention. This was the hotels first convention in 30 years. What seem to be a pleasurable stay ended up to be a catastrophe!