Please answer the questions only through reading the attached pdf.
Chapter 9 Prompts – Answer ALL of the following:1. Describe and explain the differences between a crime and a tort using your own HRT related examples. Integrate evidence from the assigned reading in your own words to support your statements in every posting.2. Describe each of the following concepts using your own hospitality,recreation or tourism-related example: Negligence,gross negligence,or an intentional act that could result in the commission of a tort(use details from the assigned reading to support your statements in every posting).3. Detail the essential differences between a duty of care and a standard of care, using your own HRT examples for each. Integrate evidence from the assigned reading in your own words to support your statements in every posting.
Chapter 1 © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 9 Your Responsibilities as a Hospitality Operator Images used under license from Shutterstock.com © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Your Responsibilities as a Hospitality Operator Duties and Obligations of a Hospitality Operator Theories of Liability Legal Damages Anatomy Of a Personal Injury Lawsuit Responding To an Incident © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved In This Chapter, You Will Learn: 1. To differentiate between the types of legal duties required of a hospitality operator, and the consequences of the failure to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling these duties. 2. To evaluate operational activities in light of their impact on guest safety and potential legal damages. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved In This Chapter, You Will Learn: 3. To understand how a lawsuit is initiated and moves through the U.S. court system. 4. To create a checklist of the steps that should be initiated immediately following an accident. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Duties and Obligations of a Hospitality Operator Legalese: Duty of Care - A legal obligation that requires a particular standard of conduct. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Duties of Care 1. Provide a reasonably safe premise. 2. Serve food and beverages fit for consumption. 3. Serve alcoholic beverages responsibly. 4. Hire qualified employees. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Duties of Care 5. Properly train employees. 6. Terminate employees who pose a danger to other employees or guests. 7. Warn about unsafe conditions. 8. Safeguard guest property, especially when voluntarily accepting possession of it. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analyze the Situation 9.1 Alan Brandis arrived at the Golden Fox restaurant for a Friday-night fish fry. During his meal, a severe thunderstorm began, which caused the ceiling of the men's restroom to leak. After finishing his meal, Mr. Brandis entered the men's room to wash his hands. He slipped on some wet tile, which was caused by the leak in the roof. He struck his head during the fall, and was severely injured. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analyze the Situation 9.1 One week later, Mr. Brandis's attorney contacted the owners of the Golden Fox with a claim for damages. The restaurant owners maintained the fall was not their responsibility, claiming they were not the insurers of guest safety. Although the owners knew of the condition of the roof, they said it leaked only during extremely heavy thunderstorms and was too old to fix without undue economic hardship. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analyze the Situation 9.1 Most important, because the storm was not within their control, the owners maintained that it was not reasonable to assume they could have foreseen the severity of the storm, and thus could not be held liable for the accident. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analyze the Situation 9.1 1. Was the severity of the storm a foreseeable event? 2. What duty of care is in question here? 3. Did the restaurant act prudently? 4. Are the restaurant's defenses valid? Why or why not? © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Duties and Obligations of a Hospitality Operator Legalese: Standard of Care - The industry- recognized, reasonably accepted level of performance used in fulfilling a duty of care. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Theories of Liability Legalese: Reasonable Care - The degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would use in a similar situation. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Theories of Liability Legalese: Tort - An act or failure to act (not involving a breach of contract), that results in injury, loss, or damage to another (i.e. negligence is an unintentional tort; whereas battery, physically touching someone is usually an intentional tort). © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Theories of Liability Negligence – all four conditions must exist to prevail: A legal duty of care is present. The defendant failed to provide the standard of care needed to fulfill that duty of care. The defendant’s failure to met the legal duty was the proximate cause of the harm. The plaintiff was injured or suffered damages. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Theories of Liability Legalese: Negligent (Negligence) - The failure to use reasonable care. Proximate Cause - The event or activity that directly contributes to (causes) the injury or harm. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Theories of Liability Legalese: Forseeability – The ability of a reasonable, prudent person to know or reasonably anticipate that harm, damage, or injury would occur or was likely to occur as a result of an action or omission. Gross Negligence - The reckless or willful failure of an individual or an organization to use even the slightest amount of reasonable care. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analyze the Situation 9.2 Paul and Beatrice Metz took their 11- year-old daughter Christine on a weekend skiing trip and stayed at the St. Stratton ski resort. The St. Stratton owned and maintained four ski trails and a ski lift on its property. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analyze the Situation 9.2 One morning, Mr. and Mrs. Metz were having coffee in the ski lodge while their daughter was riding the ski lift to the top of the mountain. On the way up, the car containing Christine Metz and one other skier jumped off its cable guide and plunged 300 feet down the mountain. As a result of the fall, Christine was permanently paralyzed from the neck down. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analyze the Situation 9.2 The Metzs filed a lawsuit against the resort. Their attorney discovered that the car's connections to the cable were checked once a year by a maintenance staff person unfamiliar with the intricacies of ski cable cars. The manufacturer of the cable car recommended weekly inspections, performed by a specially trained service technician. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analyze the Situation 9.2 The ski resort's corporate owners maintained that all skiers assumed risk when skiing, that the manufacturer's recommendation was simply a recommendation, and that their own inspection program demonstrated they had indeed exercised reasonable care. In addition, they maintained that Christine's paralysis was the result of an unfortunate accident for which the cable car's manufacturer, and not the resort, should be held responsible. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Analyze the Situation 9.2 1. Did the resort exercise reasonable care? 2. What level of negligence, if any, was present? Ordinary negligence? Gross negligence? 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? 4. Are the resort's defenses valid ones? Why or why not? © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Theories of Liability Legalese: Contributory Negligence - Negligent conduct by the complaining party (plaintiff) that contributes to the cause of his or her injuries. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Theories of Liability Legalese: Comparative Negligence - Shared responsibility for the harm that results from negligence comparing the degree of negligence by the defendant with that of the plaintiff; also known as comparative fault. © 2017 Stephen C. Barth P.C., Diana S. Barber, JD and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved Theories of Liability Legalese: Strict Liability - Responsibility arising from the nature of a dangerous activity