Law test 2 - Test Review Chapter 5 Principles of Negligence Introduction Hotel and restaurants are not the insurers of guests safety o We are

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Test Review Chapter 5 Principles of Negligence Introduction: Hotel and restaurants are not the insurers of guest’s safety o We are liable if we commit a tort Tort- many types of noncriminal wrongs done by one person that injure another Torts What is a tort? o A violation of a legal duty ( a wrongful act) by one person that injures another. (Breaches of contractual duties are not considered torts, however) We commit torts if: o We cause the harm o If we violate our duty to protect a guest from harm Intentional Torts When harm is planned Can be against a person or a person’s property Unintentional Tort- Negligence The most common liability theory Basically: careless behavior Managers may be responsible for other’s behavior Elements of a negligence case: Legal duty of care A breech of the duty Damages must exist (injury) o Intangible or tangible Causation- proximate cause/ (preexisting condition or other?) Foreseeable and Reasonable Person Is a behavior/situation foreseeable? o We must “Think outside the box” on this o Case 5-1- Ordonez says that mentally handicap Gillespe sexually assaulted her. Ordonez was they maid of the hotel room. This was not foreseeable that the child would act like this. Reasonable person o Does not have bad days o Always up to standard o Personification of community ideal Proximate Cause o Case 5-2- 3 women at the beach went to lunch at a hotel when they were doing up the stairs the 2 nd women (Woolow) fell down stairs and take 3 rd women out too. They said the hotel has loose caret. They failed to produce evidence. Woolow has spotted drinking an “unknown beverage.” Court favored hotel. b/c the women did not have proximate cause and should not
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
prove it. o Case 5-3 (preexisting condition)- Man drank 2 shoots are bar then left. He fell down stairs. Owner went to go check on him. They man said he was fine. A Hour latter they went and check on him again and the man was found dead. They man had a preexisting condition. The judge favored with the defendant who was the dead man wife. o Case 5-4- Parent of 17 year old Tome Smith. Parents are suing hotel There son when on a booze cruise. He leapt overboard and dies when hitting the propellers. Court favored Hotel, b/c it was not foreseeable Legal Status of Plaintiff Duty of care owed depends on the legal statues of the person injured Invitee = Active Vigilance o Case 5-5- Montez was diving off of a short sock. They hit concrete at bottom. Hotel said they had never checked for bottom of water to see if it was safe. The court favored the man that dived off the dock o Case 5-6 (open and Obvious)- Innkeeper not liable, Guy slipped on painted and wet sidewalk Licensee = refrain and warm o Case 5-7- girl went to find her friend at hotel. Went in to the movies room, which is 4 inches lower- tripped. Favored Hotel Trespasser = least duty o Case 5-8- Hanson wasn’t registered guest, went in pool and is now a
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/27/2011 for the course FCS 363 taught by Professor R during the Spring '11 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 11

Law test 2 - Test Review Chapter 5 Principles of Negligence Introduction Hotel and restaurants are not the insurers of guests safety o We are

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online