1) 1. What are the elements of negligence that Mr. Margreiter will need to prove against the hotel in order to win his case? List the five elements here. (Points : 5)
1. The Duty
2. Breach of Duty
4. Proximate Cause
2) 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 : ...view middle of the document...
The fact that he was hurt outside of the hotel could be the result of his action for leaving the hotel and running into wrong people.
1) With that understanding, explain the decision of the appeals court in the Margreiter case. In doing so, discuss which facts the court relied on in its decision and which facts the losing party requested the appeals court decide the case on, although it refused to do so.
One examination of the facts, the court reached the conclusion that the defendants had failed to perform their general duty to protect their guest. The breach of duty was committed because criminals and strangers were allowed to wonder indiscriminately about the hotel, there was failure to maintain competent staff of employee, failure to maintain adequate security and failure to contact the police immediately as well as failure to have hotel security office investigate the incident as soon as it was reported to the hotel employee. . The appeals court decided to uphold the verdict of the jurors. In other words the appeals court refused to decide the case on the argument of the plaintiff. In addition, the court relied on the fact that Margreiter had permanent brain damage, continuing headaches, traumatic neurosis, and epilepsy. So, apart from the verdict of the jury, the Appeals court also based its verdict on the medical report of Margreiter.
2) . Now review the Nordmann case. The Margreiter court used this case to assist it with making its decision (see line two of paragraph #4 of the Margreiter opinion.) What did the Nordmann court say was the "duty of care" a hotel owes to a guest to protect him from injury by third persons? Provide that here. Then, review the facts that the Nordmann court relied on to determine there had been a breach of the duty by the Nordmanncourt. Briefly recite those here as well. (Points : 10)
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.
In the Nordmann case the defendants were held to a standard of ordinary reasonable care to protect the hotels guest from injury by third person by the court. The court relied on the Nordman case to establish there was a breach of duty.
The hotel security also did not investigate the incident when it was reported. the facts that the court relied on in the Nordmann case to establish that there was a breach of duty are as follows. The verdict of the jury, the testimony of the occupant of the adjoining room David DuCharme who heard the robbery and assault taking place and who called the hotel operator and the room clerk asking for police but the police was not called immediately.
3. Notice that the Margreiter court doesn't state which duty it imposed on the hotel – it simply recites as "precedent" the Nordmann case for its legal basis. Now that you know the duty of...