{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Legal Issues Test 2-1

Legal Issues Test 2-1 - Legal Issues Test 2 Chapter 5...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Legal Issues Test 2 Chapter 5 Principles of Negligence a hotel or restaurant is only liable if they violate a legal duty. The hotel or restaurant is not an insurer of guests safety. This means the hotel is not liable for all injuries that occur while guests are on the premisies. The hotel or restaurant will only be liable if they do soething wrong- when they commit a tort A tort is a many types of non criminal wrongs done by one person that injure another. Negligence Negligence- is a breach of legal duty to act reasonably that is direct cause of injury to another. Negligence is carelessness that causes harm. The law requires that people and businesses act reasonabley in attempting to prevent injuries and if they don’t that person is negligent. --Elements of a Negligence Case— A plaintiff in a negligence must prove four elements. The four elements are: 1. The existence of alegal duty to act reasonably owed by the defendant to the plaintiff…2. A breach of that duty…3. Injury to the plaintiff…4. Proximate causation (cause)…this means the breach of duty must be the direct cause of the injury..there can be no intervening cause. -Existence of a duty to act reasonably- We only owe the duty to those people who would foreseeable be injured by our actions. Ex. A restaurant can foresee that if the leg of a chair is broken, a patron will sit on the chair and fall. Therefore, the restaurant owes a duty to its guests to repair the chair. If a place cannot foresee a particular type of injury, it does not owe a duty to protect patrons against that injury. Even though someone is infact injured. Case 5-1 - Ordonez was a hous eke ep er for a hot el and was sexually assaulted by a 17 year old who was m e nt ally challenged. Ordonez alleged that the boy act ed n egligently by violating the duty which they owed h er to exercise ordinary care in the care of their m e nt ally challeneg ed son, a minor. Ordonez said the family failed to properly supervise their son which included m aking sure h e was not left alone with unfa miliar
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
parents. …because this act was not easily foreseeable by the parents the mentally ill child and his family won. The maid failed to give proof that his onduct was foreseeable. -Breach of duty- A breach of duty- is like a restaurant owes a duty to its customers not to serve rancid food because customers who eat it will foreseeably become ill. If the restaurant serves spoiled food, it thereby breaches that duty. …if they break the law or do something wrong that can hurt a customer and is foreseeable, they are a breach of duty. --Reasonable Person Standard- The law provides a standard to help judge whether a defendants actions were or were not within the bounds of the law. This helps them determine if a defendant acts reasonably.
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.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 15

Legal Issues Test 2-1 - Legal Issues Test 2 Chapter 5...

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

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