Park Hotel Case Summary
Even though the incident may have affected Park Hotel’s reputation and goodwill, and that may have lost profits from the guests that were in the lobby when the incident happened, the amount of loss that the hotel will experience as a result of damage to its goodwill is uncertain and rely more on speculative figures. In addition, as we previously saw, children cannot be held negligent for their actions the same way as adults. Despite the fact that the children were left unattended, Martha Merriweather’s parents could not forecast that Martha and the other children would go play on the balcony. Moreover, in the crowded and hectic environment of the hotel, it is not reasonable to expect the parents to be aware of a lack of security, a railing
…show more content…
Martha Merriweather was an invitee of Park Hotel, and as thus, was owed a duty by Park Hotel to keep the premises in a reasonable safe condition, or to warn invitees of known dangers, or dangers that could reasonably be discovered. Moreover, foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff was apparent by the defect in the design of the railing, and by the lack of sign indicating that guests should stay off the balcony. Danger was also foreseeable due to the fact that the balcony overlooked the lobby, that balconies are known to be dangerous area, and also that the bustle and Christmas display in the lobby were creating an additional attraction to the children. A lack of assistance from the hotel and a lack in the security need to be pointed out. The degree or result of potential harm, Martha suffered a twist ankle and laceration on her arm but could have died from her fall, was remarkable; however, measures to prevent and reduce risk of an accident were minimal in comparison. When the “potential harm to the plaintiff is great”, the court requires only a “low degree of foreseeability”. Park Hotel breached their duty, endangering Martha Merriweather’s life. In regard of these elements, the hotel will be likely be responsible for Martha Merriweather’s medical expenses and emotional distress; damages would total $100,000, less the $10,000 Park Hotel’s profit losses from the
Martha Merriweather was an invitee of Park Hotel, and as thus, was owed a duty by Park Hotel to keep the premises in a reasonable safe condition, or to warn invitees of known dangers, or dangers that could reasonably be discovered. Moreover, foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff was apparent by the defect in the design of the railing, and by the lack of sign indicating that guests should stay off the balcony. Danger was also foreseeable due to the fact that the balcony overlooked the lobby, that balconies are known to be dangerous area, and also that the bustle and Christmas display in the lobby were creating an additional attraction to the children. A lack of assistance from the hotel and a lack in the security need to be pointed out. The degree or result of potential harm, Martha suffered a twist ankle and laceration on her arm but could have died from her fall, was remarkable; however, measures to prevent and reduce risk of an accident were minimal in comparison. When the “potential harm to the plaintiff is great”, the court requires only a “low degree of foreseeability”. Park Hotel breached their duty, endangering Martha Merriweather’s life. In regard of these elements, the hotel will be likely be responsible for Martha Merriweather’s medical expenses and emotional distress; damages would total $100,000, less the $10,000 Park Hotel’s profit losses from the