Posted: September 17th, 2017

A tort (negligence) has occurred at the hotel you work for and the General Manager (GM) of the hotel has requested business advice on this area of law relating to the incident.

A tort (negligence)  has occurred at the hotel you work for and the General Manager (GM) of the hotel has requested business advice on this area of law relating to the incident.

An overview as to what happened in the incident
1.    The guest went to the hotel’s restaurant to have dinner, his car was parked in the hotel’s parking area, unfortunately, his car was being robbed by a thief. He lost his laptop, passport and $3000 cash. However, on the same day the parking lot’s wall was broken due to the road extension outside the parking area and the “parking at your own risk” sign was also removed as it was painted on the broken wall. At that time, the guard was also having his dinner break since the restaurant was closed and the guest has paid all his bill. The car owner is suing the hotel and requested $6000 compensation for his loss. Is the hotel liable?

Requirements: must be tort related

An in depth examination of the key case/s and legislation in this area of law
answer these questions
o    what was the background,
o    what were the business issues,
o    what were the legal issues,
o    what was the legal result and consequences for business from this case

•    An analysis, based on the facts of the incident and any relevant case law and applicable legislation, of what the hotel should do in the situation. That is, is the hotel’s legal position strong or weak and what that might mean in relation to litigation and alternative dispute resolution?  Please explain base on the law cases with case names

•    A conclusion as to what the hotel can do to avoid the situation in the future.

Lecturer suggestions related the incident (please use these to expand more)
o    Tort cases:
?    Precaution required: Since the hotel does have the sign but it was removed when the wall broke down… however the hotel should replace it with another temporary sign
?    The “standard of care” and failing to meet it: Security went on break without caring about the guest’s property
•    The NSW Civil Liability Act 5B (2): In deciding whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court is to consider the following (among other relevant things) — the “Calculus of Negligence”
•    (a) the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken;
•    (b) the likely seriousness of the harm;
•    (c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm;
•    (d) the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm

?    The causal link between the breach and the damages: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) p.771 (p.756 e-text) “but for” test (the robbery may have occurred anyway) (precedent)
?    VICARIOUS LIABILITY: The employer and employee relationship: the security did not do his job properly, that is why the car was robbed

o    However: reasonable foreseeable injury: the hotel can not foresee the risk that the car will be rob on that day. So the hotel not liable

Cross claim against the government (sue the government for the broken wall)

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00
Live Chat+1-631-333-0101EmailWhatsApp