HRT 240 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Jury Trial, Clairvoyance, Consolidated Laws Of New York

• School: Cal Poly Pomona
• Department: Hospitality Management
• Course: HRT 240
• Professor: Edward Perez

Document Summary

Fall 2017 midterm: historically, a hotel/restaurant owner has been required to be an insurer of a guest"s safety because of the active vigilance requirement imposed by courts. False: in order to create a duty, foreseeability does not require clairvoyance, just a reasonable expectation that something will happen. True: under the reasonable person standard the jury, not the judge, decides whether the defendant acted like a reasonable person. False: the case of ordonez v. gillespie stands for the proposition that a duty of the parents was absent because their son"s sexual attack was not foreseeable. True: in the case smith v. rochelle travel agency, the court decided there was no liability against the wyndham hotel because of a superseding event which severed proximate cause. True: it really does not matter why a person is on the premises as long as sufficient foreseeability and proximate cause to ling the injury and damages.