HSP MGMT 1133 1st Edition Lecture 27 Outline of Last Lecture I. Special Rules in certain types of negligencea. Res ipsa loquiturb. Assumption of riskc. Common business negligence situationsOutline of Current Lecture II. Business Responsibility for third party crimea. Connie Francis vs Howard Johnsonb. M.C. B.C. v Yeargin + Marriotc. Aurora Coloradod. St. Louis Jack in the Boxe. Virginia Tech tragedy Current Lecture:Continued from last lecture: Heimlich maneuver in restaurants- Restaurants are not required to have someone on duty that knows how to do the Heimlich maneuver—except Oregon because they instituted a state law that requires this.- Is the Heimlich maneuver covered under the Good Samaritan laws? YesBusinesses responsibility for third party crime- " Negligent security" casesThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.o Connie Francis case against Howard Johnson- she was staying in a hotel with a door that had a broken lock—someone broke in and sexually assaulted her. She wanted to sue the hotel—first case that established the idea to possibly sue the business for a crime that happened by a third partyo M.C. B.C. v. Yeargin + Marriott- o Facts of case- she wanted an upgrade to a better room because she didn’t feel safe and the hotel did not upgrade hero Yeargin forced her in the room and sexually assaulted her—he got her pregnant and he turned out to be HIV positiveo Legal issues- husband sues for loss of contortion o Standard of care? Special relationship test- certain types of businesses have higher dutiesof care (hotels, transportation services, hospitals, public schools) Special circumstances test- focuses on whether the criminal act was foreseeable; foreseeable if:- There is a warning that the crime might occur (like a note or ananonymous phone call)- If there had been a lot of criminal activity on the property or in the area- Fear of contracting Aids- She tried to get damages for this because she was soscared and stressed about it—court said that she could receive damages for this because of the manner in which it happened- Expert testimony on brain damage-Frye v United States—General acceptancein scientific community—certain traumatic events can cause brain damage; did not let this testimony stand in court Aurora Colorado theatre shooting- is the business legally responsible? The theater had no warnings of this shooterSt Louis Jack in the Box case- fight outside at 5am—guy got his face smashed on the curb and was in a coma for a year but then he woke up, his family sued Jack in the Box and they were awarded 20 million dollarso Is this foreseeable?o There was no warning o But the area was a high crime area so it was reasonably foreseeableVirginia Tech tragedy-Where does a College campus fall on the “test” aboveo Special relationship? Does a college have heightened duties to care for its patrons? In the dorms, a higher standard of care applies. Classrooms are not designed for safety the way that dorms areo This event was not foreseeable except for that it happened in the dorm first and then at the
View Full Document