wk 3 Homework ES answers - There are five elements of...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
There are five elements of negligence. They are: 1. The Duty- We should all act like an ordinary and reasonably prudent person in all situations. 2. Breach of Duty- once the standard of care and the duty are established under element one, there must be a determination that the defendant fell short of that standard or breached that duty for the plaintiff to recover on the basis of negligence. 3. Causation- After establishing a duty and breach of duty, the plaintiff in a negligence suit must also establish that the breach of duty was the cause of damages. 4. Proximate Cause- Some cutoff cause must be drawn between the “but for” causation and events that contribute to the injury of the plaintiff-an element of a negligence case. 5. The plaintiff in a negligence case must be able to establish damages that resulted from the defendants negligence. 2. Lay out the five elements to lay out a case for negligence. 1. The Duty- 3.What defense does the hotel have on its side? I think the hotel could use comparative negligence. If Mr. Margreiter was drunk then maybe he didn’t lock his door and because of that someone entered his room and hurt him. If he acted responsibly maybe he would not have gotten hurt. I believe the hotel could also use contributory negligence because Mr. Margreiter contributed to this by being intoxicated and not being aware of his surroundings. They could also say that he left the room intoxicated and was hurt outside the hotel and this contributed to his being hurt. Not the lack of security in the hotel. The hotel depended on the story that the case was all a fake and that the plaintiff could not be believed. They used the excuse that the police stated that Margreiter was intoxicated and that there were inconsistencies in his story. Also that Margreiter had memory loss. They used the theory that Margreiter had left the hotel, became intoxicated and came into the wrong company. The losing party stated that Margreiter’s injuries were not all that bad and he was able to recover from his injuries. The court had relied on the fact that the hotel’s case had already been rejected by the jury. Since Margreiter had no intention of leaving the hotel, because he made plans with his business partners, made it better on his behalf. His business partners were able to make statements in courts that they had plans to meet with him and that he went to his room. The appeals court upheld the jurors verdict. The courts looked at the fact that Margreiter had permanent brain damage, headaches, traumatic neurosis, and epilepsy. The appeals court based its verdict on the medical report that I had on Margreiter.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
In the Nordmann case the court said that the law imposes upon innkeepers at least ordinary or reasonable care to protect their guests against injury by third persons and some and some case call for the excercise of a higher degree of care. The defendants were held to a standard of ordinary reasonable care to protect the hotel’s guest from injury by third person by the court. The court relied on the Nordman case to establish there was a breach of duty.
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 10/02/2011 for the course BUSINESS 591 taught by Professor Hergott during the Fall '11 term at Keller Graduate School of Management.

Page1 / 6

wk 3 Homework ES answers - There are five elements of...

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