1

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR GUESTS (1)

Situation 1 (9.1)
1. Was the severity of the storm a Defense: foreseeability of the storm, they
foreseeable event? weren’t the insurers of guest safety,
maintaining the fall wasn’t their
Yes. The severity of the storm was a
responsibility, ceiling too old to fix and
foreseeable event (because of the weather
costs a lot
forecast). Because the restaurant owners
knew the conditions of the roof when it’s => Fail to fulfill the duty of care
stormy.
No. Because the restaurant owners failed to
2. What duty of care is in question here? defend, they didn’t repair the roof as well as
put the warning sign before the restroom
Duty of care: a legal obligation that requires
door so that their guests were aware of the
a particular standard of conduct. Hospitality
dangers.
operators owe a duty of care to individuals
who enter their establishment.
In this case, the duty of care is:

- The restaurant owners failed to

provide their guests a safe
protection, they didn’t repair the
roof,
- They also didn’t warn an unsafe
condition when the storm started
like putting a warning sign before
the restroom door or announcing
their guests about this condition
until they fixed the roof.
3. Did the restaurant act prudently?
No. The restaurant owners knew the sign of
the storm but they didn’t have any actions
to warn their guests about the unsafe
condition in the restroom.
4. Are the restaurant's defenses valid?
Why or why not?

Situation 2 (9.2)
1. Did the resort exercise reasonable
care? - No
The resort didn't exercise a standard of care
appropriately in this situation. They fail to
provide a reasonably safe premise to the
guest. As per the manufacturer of the cable
car recommended, weekly inspections
should be performed by a specially trained
service technician. However, the resort
selected a maintenance staff person to do
this job once a year.
2. What level of negligence, if any, was
present? Ordinary negligence? Gross
negligence?

It was gross negligence because they did not
have a weekly inspection on the cable cars
and did not have a trained professional to
be there to check them and ensure that they
are safe for the guests to use.
3. What amount of money do you think a
jury would recommend the resort be
required to pay to compensate
Christine Metz for her loss, if it is
found to have committed a tort
against her?
The punitive damages of the hospital could reach
$750,000 to $1.5 million if proved that there was
gross negligence.
If it is found to have committed tort
against her, the jury would recommend both
compensatory damages to cover the medical bills
Situation 3 (9.3):
1. What would you recommend the
Fairview Mayton’s insurance
company do?
Fairview Mayton's insurance company
should try to reject responsibility while also
placing as much blame on the family. In
addition to any deductibles, the insurance
company will be responsible for paying any
settlement agreement imposed upon
Fairview Mayton. The insurance company
will assess the additional legal expenses and
calculate the settlement sum that would be
more cost-effective than filing a lawsuit.
2. What would you recommend the
franchise company’s insurance
company do?
Franchise company's insurance should
negotiate with the family a compensation
(for the failure of the hot tub standard as
well as the failure to fulfill the obligation to
maintain and repair the hotel's standard
2
and punitive damages considering the incident
was gross negligence. The girl is permanently
paralyzed from the neck down, which leaves her
handicapped for the rest of her life. For the
punitive damages the jury would recommend
around $750.000 to $1.5 million, and the
compensatory damages would cover all medical
expenses the girl has.
4. Are the resort's defenses valid ones?
Why or why not?
Defenses:
The defenses of the resort are not valid, because
these statements would not hold up in court.
Skiers do assume risk when skiing, but the
accident was due to negligence by the resort,
because they were negligent with the
maintenance of the cable car, which made the
technical problem occr.
items). However, because the hotel has left
a usage note for children under 14 years of
age, the responsibility also rests with the
Hunters, so the hotel and insurance
company will have to pay the Hunters some
(but not 5 million dollar)
3. What would you recommend the
Hunters do?
My recommendation to Hunters is,
irrespective of whether the Resort owners
have followed the protocol or it was an act
of negligence, they should’ve taken
additional care by having someone check
the tub or watch out for warning signs
before allowing their daughter to get in to
the tub. They should accept the
compensatory damages (50-60% of what
they asked for) from the franchiser hotel's
insurance company.
 3

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR GUESTS (2)

Situation 1 (10.1): Guest or nonguest?
Nicole Frost and Steve Merchand were
brother and sister. When their grandfather,
Wayne Merchand, was hospitalized for care
after a heart attack, the two began to visit
him regularly at Laurel Memorial Hospital.
One Sunday afternoon, after visiting with
their grandfather, Nicole and Steve went to
the hospital's cafeteria for a light lunch. A
professional foodservice management
company operated the cafeteria under
contract to the hospital.
Nicole and Steve selected their lunches from
an assortment of beverages and
prewrapped sandwiches that were
displayed unrefrigerated on a tray in the
middle of the cafeteria serving line. The
sandwiches were made of ham and cheese,
with a salad dressing spread, lettuce, and
tomato. Steve paid for the sandwiches,
beverages, and some chips, then he and
Nicole took a seat in the cafeteria dining
room.
Approximately four hours after eating
lunch, both Steve and Nicole became ill.
They determined that they both had
suffered a foodborne illness. The two filed
suit against the hospital and its contract
foodservice management company. When
the facts of the case came out, the hospital
maintained that, as visitors, not patients,
the hospital had no liability toward Nicole
and Steve.
The foodservice management company
operating the hospital cafeteria maintained
that its liability extended only to Steve since
he was the only guest who in fact purchased
food from its service. Management
maintained it should not be held
responsible for the illness suffered by an
individual that they did not actually serve.
1. Was Nicole a guest of the
foodservice facility?
• Người sản xuất (manufacturers) phải có Duty
of Care với những người sử dụng sản phẩm
của mình: Đây chính là mối quan hệ trong vụ
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).
• Người chủ cửa hàng (occupiers) phải có Duty
of Care với những người đến cửa hàng
(premises) của họ.
--> The foodservice facility has to take
responsibility for Nicole who came to store
and used their food and service.
2. Should Steve bear partial
responsibility for the damage he and
Nicole suffered, given that he
purchased the sandwiches?
- Defendants can possibly foresee the
harm because " prewrapped
sandwiches that were displayed
unrefrigerated on a tray in the
middle of the cafeteria serving line.
- The damage is significant because
Steve and Nicole suffered from a
foodborne illness.
- Fac
3. What type of liability (from Chapter
9, “Your Responsibilities as a
Hospitality Operator”) applies in
this case? Why?
Types of liability in this case is Type
of Damages because this case refers to pain
and suffering (Steve and Nicole suffered
from a foodborne illness). Strict

Situation 2 (10.2): Guest or Tenant?


Ketan Patel operated the Heartworth Suites,
an extended-stay, limited-service hotel of
85 rooms. Approximately 40 percent of his
guests were "extended-stay," which Mr.
Patel's company defined as a stay longer
than five consecutive days. The remaining
rooms were sold to traditional transient
guests, whose average stay was
approximately 1.8 days.
Bob Thimming was an extended-stay guest
at the Heartworth, and an employee of Katy
Highway Contractors. Mr. Thimming held
the position of construction foreman for a
stretch of interstate highway being repaired
in the vicinity of the Heartworth Suites.
His company signed a contract with the
Heartworth confirming that Mr. Thimming
would be given a special monthly, rather
than daily rate, because he was staying in
the hotel for six consecutive months as part
of his work assignment.
In the third month of his stay, Mr. Thimming
arrived at the hotel from his job site at
approximately 5:30 P.M. to find the door to
his room ajar.
Mr. Thimming maintained that someone
had negligently left the door open, and as a
result, his watch was stolen. He contacted
his company, whose in-house attorney
called Mr. Patel. The attorney stated that
Mr. Thimming was a tenant of the hotel, and
as a landlord, Mr. Patel was responsible for
the negligent acts of his employee and
should reimburse Mr. Thimming for his loss.
Mr. Patel replied that Mr. Thimming was not
a tenant but a transient guest, and thus was
subject to a state law that limits an
innkeeper's liability in such cases to $350.
The attorney disagreed, based on the six-
month “lease” signed by Katy Highway
Situation 3 (10.3):
Jessica Bristol and her two young children
checked into room 104 of the Travel-In
motel at 9:00 P.M. on Friday night. She
4
Contractors for Mr. Thimming. He
demanded that the watch be replaced and
Time Key used Key Issued To Result
6:30 A.M. 7J 105-60 Guest Entry
6:32 A.M. 7J 105-60 Guest Entry
1:30 P.M. 1M 002-3 Maintenance Entry
threatened to file suit if it was not. Mr. Patel
contacted his attorney, who offered, based
on his view of the complexity of the case, to
defend the Heartworth Suites for $3,000,
with a required retainer (down payment) of
$2,000.
1. Was Mr. Thimming a transient
guest or a tenant?
Mr. Thimming is a tenant because he was an
extended-stay guest, and he was staying in
the hotel for six consecutive months as part
of his work assignment. A tenant is anyone,
including a corporation, who rents real
property for an extended period of time
with the intent of establishing a permanent
occupation or residency.
2. Why is the distinction important
in this situation?
The distinction is important in this situation
because the laws for Mr. Thimming and his
belongings alter depending on whether he
is a tenant of the real estate or a visitor at
the hotel.
3. What should Mr. Patel do in the
future to avoid the expense of
litigation such as this?
To minimize the high costs of litigation in
the future, Mr. Patel should identify his
long-term guests as transient guests or
renters in their contracts.
produced a credit card issued in her name
as a form of payment, and requested that
she be given the room for two nights.

On Saturday afternoon, a man identifying
himself as Preston Bristol, Mrs. Bristol's
husband, presented himself at the front
desk and asked for the key that she was
supposed to have left for him at the front
desk. He stated that he was joining his wife
and children at the motel; they were visiting
relatives, but he had to work the day before.
The desk clerk replied that no key had been
left, and proceeded to call the room to
inform Mrs. Bristol that her husband was at
the front desk. There was no answer in the
room.
Mr. Bristol then produced his driver's
license for the desk clerk, which had the
same address that Mrs. Bristol had used on
her registration card.
Mr. Bristol also produced a credit card
issued in his name with the same account
number as that used by Mrs. Bristol at
check-in. As the clerk perused the license
and credit card, Mr. Bristol offhandedly
referred to a picture in his wallet of Mrs.
Bristol and his two children. Based on the
positive identification, the clerk issued Mr.
Bristol a key to Mrs. Bristol's room.
At approximately 6:00 P.M. on Saturday, a
guest in room 105 called the front desk to
complain about a loud argument in room
104, Mrs. Bristol's room. The desk clerk
called room 104, but got no answer. The
clerk then called the local police. When they
arrived, they found Mrs. Bristol badly
beaten, and her children missing. A
description of Mr. Bristol's car quickly led to
his arrest and the recovery of the children
by the police.
Mrs. Bristol recovered from her injuries and
completed the divorce proceedings she had
begun against her husband. In addition, she
filed assault and battery charges against
him. She also sued the motel's manager,
owner, and franchise company for $8
million, stating that the motel was negligent
and had violated her right to privacy. The
motel's position was that it acted
reasonably to ensure Mr. Bristol's identity,
5
and added that it was not an insurer of
guest safety and could not have foreseen
Mr. Bristol's actions.
1. Did the desk clerk act in a
reasonable manner?
Based on the case the desk clerk did not
acted reasonably because of the
following reason
 When Mrs. Bristol checked in, she
had her two children with her and
never authorized the front desk to
allow her husband to visit the
motel at any point during their stay.
 The front desk clearly knows that
payment of the rooms would
depend on the number of people
available and at the time of check-
in, only three people were paid and
that for Mrs. Bristol and her for her
two children.
 The front desk is aware that
because Mrs. Bristol paid for the
accommodation in the first place,
any guests would need her
permission to stay there.
 Even though the front desk clerk's
phone call went unanswered, the
clerk nevertheless allowed Mr.
Bristol to enter the room. Instead,
the clerk ought to have asked the
staff to physically go to room 104
and ask the residents if they are
expecting a visitor.
2. Did Mr. Bristol have a right to enter
the room?
Mr. Bristol has no right to enter the
room.
 Since Mrs. Bristol reserved the
room exclusively for them, Mr.
Bristol was not mentioned during
the motel's approval of their
reservation.

 Marriage does not grant someone
permission to invade another
person's space because everyone
still has the right to privacy and the
expectation that they won't be
bothered
 Without permission from Mrs.
Bristol, the entry of Mr. Bristol
would remain as not authorized and
hence not reasonable.
3. What should management do in the
future to prevent such an
occurrence?
 Train the staff to call a room even
if no one answers.
Situation 4 (10.4):
Walter Thomas was visiting Jeff Placer, who
had registered as a guest at a newly opened
Lodger-Inn hotel. The hotel was located off
an interstate highway exit; it had been open
for only three days. When Mr. Thomas left
Mr. Placer's room in the evening, he was
assaulted in the hotel's parking lot.
Mr. Thomas contacted an attorney who
threatened to sue the hotel for the injuries.
Lashondra Tyson, the attorney for the hotel,
replied to Mr. Thomas's attorney that the
hotel was not responsible for the acts of
third parties and that the hotel had no
history of criminal activity taking place on
its grounds. Thus the hotel could not have
foreseen any potential problem. In addition,
Mr. Thomas was not a registered guest in
the hotel.
Mr. Thomas's attorney replied that many
hotels experience problems in their parking
lots, so the hotel should, in fact, have
anticipated potential problems. He also
stated that Mr. Thomas was an invitee of the
hotel and thus the hotel was required to
6
 Build a strong and clear policy
regarding acceptance of the guest
of the paying guest. Meaning, that
a permission or written
authorization be had from any of
the guest if they are accepting a
guest
 The guest of the guest should be
able to sign a form with the motel
that no harm or abuse will be
conducted there in prior to their
acceptance.
 Any permission the visitor may
have to enter should be requested
from the visitor.
guard his interest in the same manner as
that of a guest.
1. What was the legal status of Mr.
Thomas?
2. Why is the distinction important in
this situation?
3. What records would Ms. Tyson need
from the hotel's manager to give her
the best chance of winning any
potential lawsuit?
1. What was the legal status of Mr.
Thomas?
- Mr.Thomas’s legal status is Jeff Placer’s
guests (guest of guest)
2. Why is the distinction important in this
situation?
* According to Hospitality Law by
Stephen Barth:
 7

- Most hotels allow guests great freedom possible to know whether someone is a
in permitting invited friends and family guest, or a guest of a guest, reasonable
mebers to visit them in the hotel. Most precautions should be taken to protect
guests expect, and most hotels allow, everyone who uses your facility.
guests of guests to enjoy many of the
privileges enjoyed by the guest.
3. What records would Ms. Tyson need
- Obviously, it is unlawful for a hotel
from the hotel's manager to give her the
manager to refuse to allow guests of guests
best chance of winning any potential
on a discriminatory basis.
lawsuit?
- From a personal injury liability point of
- Guest registration list of the hotel at that
view, the guests of a guest, if they are on
day => To prove Mr.Thomas was not the
the premises in accordance with hotel
guest of the hotel
policy, should be treated in the same
manner as a guest. That is, they should be - History of criminal activity taking place
provided with a safe and secure facility. on hotel’s grounds + Record of Oprening
duration => To prove the following
- But a legal responsibility may come into
priciples
existence if the danger or harm was
foreseeable. For example, if dangerous + Under many state laws, a hotel has no
incidents of a similar nature had occurred legal responsibility to protect others from
on or near the premises previously, a jury the criminal acts of third parties.
might find that the hotel could have
+ But a legal responsibility may come into
anticipated such an occurrence again and
existence if the danger or harm was
should have taken reasonable steps to
foreseeable.
attempt to prevent it. Because it is not

Situation 5 (10.5):
You are the area vice president of company president, has asked you to
franchising for a quick service restaurant respond to the following:
(QSR) company that serves a unique grilled
1. How will you determine which units
chicken product that has become extremely
are not in compliance with Title III of
popular. Because of a strong marketing
the Americans with Disabilities Act
effort and solid operating results, your
requirements? Inspection
company’s growth has been very rapid. In
your five-state area, the company is Removal of architectural barriers
considering purchasing a small chain of 15
units that sells a comparable chicken The ADA requires the removal of architectural
barriers in facilities where “readily
product.
achievable.” Examples of barrier removal
Those units, consisting of older buildings in include the following:
excellent locations, are to be converted to
Installation of ramps
units owned and operated by your
company. Your immediate supervisor, the Making curbs accessible on sidewalks/building
entrances

Rearranging furniture
Widening doorways
Installing grab bars in restrooms “Readily
achievable” means easy to accomplish and can
be done without much difficulty or expense.
Tax breaks are available to many businesses
for ADA accommodations.
New construction must be accessible
New buildings that are designed and
constructed to be first occupied by public
accommodation after January 26, 1993, are
required to be accessible to people with
disabilities. If a building has undergone a
major alteration since then it must also be
accessible. The current architectural standards
for accessibility in new construction or
alterations are in the 2010 ADA Standards for
Accessible Design issued by the US
Department of Justice.
2. What criteria will you use for
prioritizing needed improvements?
Look at slide C10 – slide 41 about
priorities
Criteria for prioritizing needed improvements
including :
- Safety: Safety is a top priority for any
business or facility. Improvements that
address safety concerns for individuals
with disabilities, such as accessible
entrances and exits, emergency
evacuation procedures, and accessible
restroom facilities should be given top
priority.
- Access to Goods and Services:
Improvements that directly impact
8
access to goods and services, such as
installing wheelchair ramps, providing
accessible seating, or offering assistive
technology, should also be given high
priority.
- Cost: The cost of improvements is an
important consideration, particularly
for small businesses or those with
limited budgets. Improvements that
are cost-effective and provide the
greatest impact for the least amount of
money should be prioritized.
3. How will you document a good-faith
effort to meet Title III of the ADA
requirements?
Draft answers to your president’s
questions.
- Conduct an Accessibility Audit: Conduct a
comprehensive accessibility audit of your
business or facility to identify any barriers that
may prevent individuals with disabilities from
accessing your goods and services.
- Create an Accessibility Plan: Develop an
accessibility plan that outlines the steps that
will be taken to remove barriers and improve
accessibility.
- Train Staff: Train your staff on the
requirements of Title III and how to provide
effective communication and assistance to
individuals with disabilities.
- Provide Accommodations: Provide
accommodations to individuals with
disabilities, such as auxiliary aids and services
or modifications to policies and procedures.