Grading Summary
These are the automatically computed
results of your exam. Grades for essay
questions, and comments from your
instructor, are in the "Details" section
below.
Question Type:
Date Taken:
Time Spent:
Points Received:
62 / 65 (95.4%)
# Of Questions:
# Correct:
Short
1
N/A
Essay
6
N/A
Grade Details - All Questions
Page: 1
1.
2
Question :
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.
Student Answer:
The five elements of negligence that Mr. Margreiter would need to
prove are: - Defendant or the hotel has a duty to exercise "reasonable
care" for the safety and security of their guests. - Hotel has a general
duty to reasonably protect guests from harm caused by other guests
or non-guests. - Hotel has a duty to make the premises reasonably
safe for their guests. Hotel had a keying system for the hotel rooms
that were inadequate. - Hotel Defendant actually breached his duty in
some way. - The Defendant's breach caused harm to the plaintiff and
the harm was actually done as a result of the negligence.
Comments:
2060967796
0
2.
Short
2060967796
Question :
Student Answer:
1
Short
False
1
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.
1) Hotel has to exercise "reasonable care" for the safety and security
of their guests. They had to make sure that the security guard was
available in the hotel premises. In this case, the hotel breached the
expected security measures as there were no security personnel’s
available at the time of the incident as the case shows. Because, if
there were security personnel’s, they would have prevented the
assailant to carry Mr. Margreiter to a parking lot three blocks away
from the Monteleone. 2) Hotel has a general duty to reasonably
protect guests from harm caused by other guests or people. The Hotel
was negligent in controlling access to the evaluator. Probably, the
hotel didn't have security cameras also. The hotel didn't take proper
care to secure the premises. 3) Hotels have an affirmative duty to
make the premises reasonably safe for their guests. The very fact that
assailant could enter into Mr. Margreiter's room suggests that they had
access to the alternative keys and the hotel management should have
looked into updating the key system for the rooms. There should be
some sort of an audit system in place so each key is accounted for or
is voided if the customer forgets to turn it in. 4) Hotel is at fault for
this crime as they failed in its duty to provide reasonable security and
the assailant got into the plaintiff's room and cause immense damage
to him and the harm was actually done as a result of the negligence. It
is very clear from the above that the hotel didn't have reasonable
security standards and failed to enforce or implement them in some
way. This led to immense suffering and damage to Mr. Margreite and
the hotel is liable to compensate for this damage done to Mr.
Margreite.
Comments:
2060967797
0
3.
Essay
2060967797
Question :
1
Essay
False
1
What defense(s) does the hotel have on its side? List (and define)
those here. Very briefly state why you think the hotel could use this
defense.
Student Answer:
1) The hotel is responsible for general safety of each guess but not
absolute safety. Absolute safety means total and complete security. 2)
Hotels are not liable for every accident or loss that occurs on the
premises. When someone books a room and sign the paperwork at the
time of check in, one releases some of the liability from the hotel to
take responsibility upon oneself. For example, in the pool area it is
always posted “No lifeguard on duty”. 3) The Hotel would not be liable
if Mr. Margreiter was in fact drunk and he let the men into his room.
The attack happened outside the hotel premises or at least Mr.
Margreiter was found unconscious outside the hotel premises in
inebriated state. Any incident that happens outside the premises, the
hotel mayn't be held responsible for the same. 4) Hotels are to take
reasonable care of their guests. They do have an audit system that
they track all key cards or destroy them after each use. The hotel also
can contend that they followed all the security measures and
standards and did everything that was reasonably adequate from the
security perspective for their guests.
Comments:
2060967800
0
Page: 1
Essay
2060967800
2
Essay
False
2
2
Grading Summary
These are the automatically computed
results of your exam. Grades for essay
questions, and comments from your
instructor, are in the "Details" section
below.
Question Type:
Date Taken:
Time Spent:
Points Received:
11/15/2012
2 h , 05 min , 20 secs
62 / 65 (95.4%)
# Of Questions:
# Correct:
Short
1
N/A
Essay
6
N/A
Grade Details - All Questions
Page: 1
1.
2
Question :
During an appeal, the appeals court is required to rely on the evidence
submitted during the trial. The "record," which is made by both parties
during the trial, including all objections and other submissions of
evidence, is binding on the appeals court, unless it was erroneous or
not reasonable to believe or accept that evidence. Further, decisions of
fact and credibility are typically left to the jury to make, and appeals
courts prefer not revisiting those decisions (unless they are beyond
the weight of the evidence or defy credulity.) Because the jury can
weigh the body language of the witnesses during trial, and the record
on appeal can't show that, appeal courts prefer allowing juries to make
"fact-finding" decisions. Judges on appeal try to look for legal theories
to overturn cases (or uphold them.) They make the "law" based
decisions, based on the record before them.
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.
Student Answer:
According to the case file, the hotel failed in several security
measures. The men had unauthorized possession of the keys and the
elevators were not secured. The hotel arguments addressed to the
wrong arbiter, the judge of course refused them. The record supports
the judge decision. Mr. Margreiter's associates also testified and one of
them said he was to come by Margreiter room later. The other said the
television in Margreiter room was unusual loud. Margreiter testified the
accident himself and said that two men kidnapped him from his room.
This is a convincing proof that he was having no plan to go anywhere
outside on that night. The hotel, sections 6 and 7 tried to defend that
Mr. Margreiter had left the premises, got beaten outside the hotel, and
that after all his injuries weren't 'as bad as all that,' and had no
permanent effects. But the two witnesses' account on the contrary,
vouches for his character and testified that Mr. Margreiter wouldn't
leave the premises to get intoxicated at midnight. Evidence from the
hospital also suggested that his injuries were extensive and he
suffered from permanent brain damages. Also he will need to use
drugs for long time, which has side effects, and cost money. There is
no evidence that the plaintiff is in a wrong position, or he went that
night to somewhere by himself. His associates had testified the
occasion. The hotel argues that Mr. Margreiter’s injuries were not so
bad. Mr. Margreiter was found unconscious outside the hotel premises
in inebriated state. Any incident that happens outside the premises,
the hotel mayn't be held responsible for the same.
Comments:
2060967795
0
2.
Essay
2060967795
Question :
Student Answer:
1
Essay
False
1
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 Nordmann court. Briefly recite those here as well.
In the Nordmann’s case, court said the duty of care is held. The
defendant has the duty and need to have a standard of ordinary or
reasonable care to protect the hotel’s guests from injury by third
persons. The Margreiter court has used Nordmann case to assist it
making its decision. In Nordmann's case, the complaint charged the
defendants with negligence in the following particulars: 1. Permitting
criminals, sex deviates and vagrants to wander indiscriminately about
the hotel; 2. Failure to maintain a competent staff of employees; 3.
Failure to maintain adequate security personnel; 4. Failure to summon
the police immediately 5. Failure to have the hotel security officer
investigates the incident as soon as it was reported to a hotel
employee. Hotel owes to the guests to protect them from a third
person. Only one security guard was on duty. Moreover, the back door
of the hotel had no security. This is considered as negligence. The
court found that the hotel negligence is the approximate cause of the
accident; also found that the plaintiff has not contributory negligence.
DuCharme had called for help but was transferred to the clerk. The
clerk further delayed to report. The two policemen attending the ball
were never summoned. Because of all of the above, the jury found the
hotel liable for the damages.
Comments:
2060967798
0
3.
Essay
2060967798
Question :
2
Essay
False
2
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 care that the Margreiter
court used in its decision, briefly compare the two sets of facts from
the two cases. Then answer these questions:
a) Do you feel that the Margreiter case had as strong facts as did the
Nordmann case for holding the hotel liable? Why or why not?
b) Which facts do you feel most strongly weigh in favor of the court's
decision in the Margreiter case?
c) Which facts do you feel were a stretch by the court in Margreiter?
d) Which case do you feel was more of a "slam-dunk" case to decide
and why?
Student Answer:
a) In Nordmann case, the hotel is more negligent. According to
Margreiter case, the television in Margreiter room was louder than the
normal and Mr. Margreiter was not negligent. But, on the other hand,
the hotel did nothing to prevent the incident or take appropriate action
at the time of the incident. However, in the Nordmann case there was
Mr. DuCharme, in the next room, who called the room clerk about the
robbery. There were only one security guard and this was definitely
negligent on the part of the hotel. The hotel acted in a careless
manner even after it was reported to the room clerk. In Normann's
case, the hotel had the opportunity to apprehend the perpetrator. b) I
think in Margreiter case, the fact that have strong effect to on the
court decision is that the two associates who proves that Margreiter
was having no plan that night out of the hotel. This proves that the
attack happened inside the hotel, so the hotel failed to protect him
while he was in his room. The fact that the security guard had gone
home for the evening and perpetrators had keys to the premises.
Other facts that weighed in favour of the court's decision in the
Margreiter's case was that witnesses vouched for Mr. margreiter's
character, and secondly, they vouched for the part of his story
involving the volume of the TV. c) I think the fact that was stretched
was the comment about "His hair suddenly turned white and his friend
Bogan, who is 78 years old, declares that he hopes he never looks so
old as Mrgreiter does at 55." may perhaps be going a bit far and this
play son people's emotions at the expense of fairness and impartiality.
d) I think Nordmann case was more slam-dunk, because the evidence
show that the hotel was completely negligent and there were many
levels of failure. There were not enough security and everyone
involved in the case was negligent of their duties to the hotel. The
hotel failed to take appropriate action at or before the incident.
Comments:
2060967799
0
4.
Essay
2060967799
Question :
3
Essay
False
3
Do you agree with the decisions by the Nordmann and Margreiter
courts? Do you feel that the decisions were ethical in nature? Why or
why not? Use one of your ethical dilemma resolution models to
analyze the court's decision of one of the two cases to help support
your answer and include that analysis in your answer (i.e., Laura
Nash, front page of the newspaper, Blanchard & Peale, Wall Street
Journal). Make sure to set out the steps of the model and apply your
reasoning and facts to the model in your answer.
Student Answer:
Yes, I agree with decision in both cases, and I think they were ethical
in nature. In both cases the hotel were negligent. The hotel is
supposed to provide protection for the guests from injuries and
untoward incidents during their stay in the hotel. In Margreiter case
the perpetrators attacked him inside his room and there was no good
security. This was a proximate cause for the injury. One of the ethical
dilemma resolution models to analyze the court decision of the
Margreiter case is the front page of the newspaper model. We need to
ask ourselves how the reporter will describe the decision in the front
page of a local or national newspaper. I think he would say that the
judge come to final decision that the hotel where negligent to protect
Mr. Margreiter who was kidnapped from his room in the hotel, he was
founded unconscious outside the hotel and there were no sufficient
security. He will have a permanent medical problems. I believe that
the court should not have reduced the dollar amount after all there
was no proof that he was drunk and let the men into his room on his
own. Mr. Margreiter had a lot of medical bills and miss time from work.
To me it was unethical to blame this case on Mr. margreiter drinking
AS there were not suggestions or signs that he was out of control.
Ethics that the hotel lacked: Lack of honesty – They didn’t inform the
guests that they were lacking security. Trustworthiness – They allowed
someone to access the system to get access to Mr. Margreiter’s room.
Concern respect for others – Do they do an audit on the keyless
access system? Why didn’t they do something about the security
guard? Leadership – the hotel assistant manager showed a lack of
leadership when the security guard wasn’t replaced with someone.
Accountability – there was no accountability from the hotel as far as a
backup system goes for the security of the hotel.
Comments:
2060967801
0
Page: 1
Essay
2060967801
2
4
Essay
False
4