Summary Of The Helton's Court Case

In the case study presented we will learn about the Helton family travel plans and the tragedy they endured by having their trailer stolen right across the street from their accommodations. You will also learn how the Fairfield Inn motel decided to deal with security measures in order to save their profits.
Travel Plans The Helton family who is use to traveling on weekends checked into the Fairfield Inn motel. The family was towing a trailer containing a drag racing car, golf cart, racing equipment, and other personal property. The plaintiff noticed that there was no were for them to park their 36 foot trailer within the hotel’s designated parking lot. The plaintiffs decided to park their trailer in a paved parking area in front
They also made the conscious decision to not advice of the increase of robberies in the area. Mr. Helton asked the motel clerk prior to leaving his trailer in the parking lot if it was ok for him to leave it there. The motel clerk responded that it should be fine. The morning after, the plaintiffs discovered that their trailer had been stolen. Trying to inquire about prior theft to the same parking lot the motel’s clerk responded that there had not been any theft prior to the plaintiffs stay.
The Court Case The Helton’s decided to sue Glenn Enterprises, Inc. for compensatory damages arising out of the theft of their 36 foot trailer, drag racing vehicle, and other personal items. The Helton’s felt that the motel should be held liable for their monetary loss. The plaintiffs brought into evidence the knowledge of motel’s management regarding prior vehicle theft outside of their property. They also added that even thou management was aware of the problems; they decided not to take action and refrained from increasing motel’s security. The court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s case. Even thou the hotel decided not to upgrade their security or inform guest of previous robberies in the area. The plaintiffs could not prove Glenn Enterprise, Inc. had owner liability because as previously stated they did not own the parking lot
McClung sued Wal-Mart and the owner of the shopping center. His argument to the court was that the defendants were negligent in the way they chose to provide or execute security measures for the parking lot. He also argued that their negligence was the immediate cause of Mrs. McClung death. When challenged with the defendant's indication for summary judgment, the plaintiff trusted, in part, upon records from the Memphis Police Department, which indicated that from May, 1989 through September, 1990, when plaintiff's wife was abducted, roughly 164 criminal events had occurred on or near defendants' parking lot. The Court of Appeals stated. A business normally has no duty to shelter customers from the unlawful acts of third parties which occur on its grounds. The business is not to be considered as the enforcer of the safety of its customers, and it has no complete responsibility to implement security measures for the protection of its customers. However, a duty to take realistic steps to protect customers arises if the industry knows from past involvement, that criminal actions against its customers on its premises are reasonably probable, at some particular time. (Tenn