NAME: JOSIEL A. MERCADERO PROF: DR.

MARK LESTER TRINIDAD

YR. & SECTION: BSHM 4 ATLANTIS SUBJECT: THC 9

THC 9 ACTIVITY#3 FINALS

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS:

MR. AND MRS. ANGELO were frequent diners at the Buffet World restaurant, a moderately priced
operation that featured an all-you-can-eat lunch and dinner buffet. Jessie Carroll was the manager of
the restaurant. On a busy Sunday, Mr. and Mrs. Angelo entered the restaurant, paid for their meal, and
were directed to their table by the dining room greeter. As Mrs. Angelo sat down, the wooden dining
room chair snapped under her weight. Her neck was injured as she fell on the restaurant’s tile fl oor. The
Angelos sued Buffet World, charging negligence in the operation of the restaurant. Their attorney
argued that the normal wear and tear of chairs was a foreseeable event, and thus an inspection program
should have been in place. No such program could be shown by the restaurant to have existed. The
attorney for the restaurant countered that Mrs. Angelo was “larger” than the average guest, and
therefore Buffet World could not have foreseen that she would be seated in a chair that was not capable
of holding her weight. The restaurant’s attorney also noted that Buffet World had never experienced a
problem like this before.

1. Is Mrs. Angelo’s weight a relevant issue in her case against the restaurant?
* While Mrs. Angelo's weight might be a factor considered by the restaurant's defense, it is not
necessarily a decisive one. The primary issue is whether the restaurant exercised reasonable
care in maintaining its facilities, including its chairs. A restaurant has a duty to provide
reasonably safe seating for its patrons, regardless of their size. If the chair was defective due to
wear and tear, the restaurant's failure to inspect and replace it could be considered negligence,
even if the incident was unusual.

2. What evidence could the restaurant have provided to its attorney to demonstrate reasonable care
in the inspection of its dining room furniture?

* The restaurant could have provided evidence of a regular inspection program for its dining room
furniture. This could include:

 Written inspection checklists: These documents could outline the specific items to be checked,
such as the structural integrity of chairs, tables, and other furniture.

 Inspection records: These records would document the date, time, and results of each
inspection.

 Maintenance logs: These logs would show any repairs or replacements made to furniture.

 Employee training records: These records would demonstrate that employees were trained to
identify and report any potential hazards, including damaged or worn-out furniture.
 3. If it were independently owned, who would be responsible for designing and
implementing an effective furniture inspection program for Buffet World?
 If Buffet World were independently owned, the owner or a designated manager would be
responsible for designing and implementing the furniture inspection program. This person
would need to have a thorough understanding of safety regulations, industry standards, and the
specific needs of the restaurant. They would also need to allocate the necessary resources, such
as time and personnel, to ensure that the program is effective.
Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of patrons lies with the restaurant owner or
manager. By implementing a rigorous inspection program, they can help to prevent accidents
and protect their business from liability.

WAYNE DOBINION WAS THE district manager for a franchised quickservice Mexican-style restaurant in a
large city. On a Friday night at 11:30 P.M., just after the restaurant locked its front doors to the general
public, three masked men entered the store through the unlocked back kitchen door. They demanded
that the assistant manager on duty at the time turn over all the restaurant’s cash. Nervously, the 19-
year-old assistant manager explained that all the cash had been deposited in a safe in the manager’s offi
ce and that he had no ability to open it. Angry at their inability to rob the restaurant, the gunmen shot
two of the restaurant workers, including the assistant manager, as they fl ed the restaurant. The
assistant manager later died from his wounds. The attempted robbery and shooting make that night’s
local television news. A lawsuit fi led by the assistant manager’s parents charged that the restaurant
lacked proper alarms and locks on the back door. In addition, they charged that the restaurant owners
and the franchise company failed to provide any training to its staff regarding the proper response to an
armed robbery. The lawsuit was reported in a front-page article in the local paper. An investigative
reporter from another television station in the city called the restaurant’s manager to request an on-air
interview regarding the training the restaurant’s employees receive related to robberies. The manager
referred the call to Mr. Dobinion.

1. What issues will the courts and jury likely consider as they evaluate the legitimacy of the
parents’ lawsuit?
* Issues the courts and jury might consider:
 Adequacy of security measures: The court will likely assess whether the restaurant had
reasonable security measures in place, such as alarms, locks, and employee training.
 Foreseeability of risk: The court will determine if the restaurant should have reasonably
foreseen the risk of armed robbery and taken steps to mitigate it.
 Proximity and causation: The court will examine the causal link between the lack of security
measures and the employee's death.

2. What legal position might the franchisor take if it had provided training materials to the local
franchisee, but the franchisee had never utilized those materials?
 * The franchisor might argue that it fulfilled its duty of care by providing training materials to
the franchisee. However, the franchisee's failure to utilize these materials could weaken the
franchisor's defense. The court might still hold the franchisor liable if it can be shown that the
franchisor had a duty to ensure that the franchisee followed its safety protocols.

3. What is the likely outcome if Mr. Dobinion refuses to meet with the investigative reporter? What if
Mr. Dobinion has not been trained to do so?

* If Mr. Dobinion refuses to meet with the investigative reporter, it could damage the
restaurant's reputation and negatively impact public perception. It may also hinder the restaurant's
ability to control the narrative and potentially expose it to further legal and reputational risks.

If Mr. Dobinion has not been trained to handle media inquiries, it is advisable to consult with
legal counsel or a public relations professional to determine the best course of action. They can provide
guidance on how to respond to media requests, manage the situation effectively, and protect the
restaurant's interests.

THE COMMODORE HOTEL WAS owned by the First Community Insurance Company, and
managed by Fieldstone Hospitality Management. After two separate guest assaults occurred inside the
hotel rooms, Fieldstone Management approached First Community Insurance with the idea of either
installing a closed circuit video camera (CCVC) system in all hallways or increasing the lighting levels of
the hotel’s corridors. First Community Insurance authorized Fieldstone Management to purchase a
video surveillance system consisting of six cameras and a central location to view them. The events
shown by the cameras were not committed to tape. Late on the evening of February 6, Mrs. Cynthia
Larson checked into the Commodore and was assigned a room at the end of one of the hotel’s corridors.
As she attempted to insert her electronic key into the door lock, she was assaulted. Mrs. Larson sued
both Fieldstone Management and First Community Insurance, claiming that both companies’ failure to
monitor their cameras was a direct cause of her assault. In addition, she claimed that the cameras’ use
was deceptive, in that it gave her a false sense of security. As she stated, “The cameras showed me the
hotel cared about my security, and I wanted to stay in a safe location.” According to timesheets
provided under subpoena by the hotel, an employee was assigned to view the cameras in the central
location for an average of two hours per night between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. The assault
occurred at a time when no employee was monitoring the cameras. The attorney for First Community
Insurance stated that the company was merely the owner of the hotel and not responsible for day-to-
day management; thus, is should not be held responsible for Mrs. Larson’s injuries. Fieldstone
Management maintained that it too should not be held responsible just because the cameras installed
were not monitored at all times. The presence of the cameras themselves and electronic locks on their
doors demonstrated that the company used reasonable care in the protection of its guests.

1. Will First Community Insurance be held partially responsible for the actions of
Fieldstone Management?
 * The court may hold First Community Insurance partially responsible for the actions of
Fieldstone Management. As the owner, the insurance company has a duty to ensure
that the property is managed responsibly. If the court finds that the insurance company
had knowledge of the security risks and failed to take adequate measures, it could be
held liable.

2. Did Fieldstone Management use reasonable care in the installation and operation of the camera
system? Would it matter if the cameras were recording to tape?

* Fieldstone Management's claim of reasonable care might be challenged. While installing

cameras and electronic locks can be seen as proactive measures, the failure to monitor the cameras
consistently undermines the effectiveness of the security system. The recording of the camera footage
could strengthen the argument for reasonable care, as it would provide a record of events and
potentially deter crime. However, the absence of recording does not necessarily absolve the
management of liability if they failed to monitor the cameras effectively.

3. What could the hotel owners do in the future to help avoid a similar situation with a guest?

* To avoid similar situations, the hotel owners could implement the following measures:

 Consistent Camera Monitoring: Ensure that cameras are monitored 24/7, either by dedicated
staff or through remote surveillance systems.

 Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits to identify potential vulnerabilities and
implement necessary improvements.

 Employee Training: Train staff on security procedures, including how to respond to emergencies
and suspicious activity.

 Enhanced Lighting: Improve lighting in hallways, parking lots, and other common areas to deter
crime.

 Key Card Access Control: Implement a robust key card access system to restrict access to guest
rooms and other areas.

 Emergency Response Plans: Develop and regularly update emergency response plans to address
various security threats.

 Guest Communication: Inform guests about security measures in place and encourage them to
report any suspicious activity.

KARIN PELLEY WAS EMPLOYED as a district manager by Ron’s Roast Beef, a regional chain of 150
quick-service restaurants serving sandwiches, soups, and soft drinks. Most of the stores were located in
shopping mall food courts or strip malls. Ms. Pelley worked out of her home offi ce, traveling to visit her
12 assigned stores on a regular basis. Ms. Pelley communicated with the corporate offi ce via telephone,
fax machine, and modem, all of which were installed in her home by Advance Technology, a
telecommunications company selected by Ron’s Roast Beef to supply telecommunications equipment
and services to employees. As part of its contract with Ron’s Roast Beef, Advance Technology serviced
the machines used by Ms. Pelley in her daily work. When Ms. Pelley’s modem stopped working one day,
she contacted her home office, which then called Advance Technology to request that a service
technician be dispatched to Ms. Pelley’s home. In the course of his visit, the technician assaulted Ms.
Pelley. The technician was later apprehended by the police and convicted of felony assault, his third
such conviction in three years. Ms. Pelley sued Advanced Technology, claiming negligent hiring. In
addition, her attorney submitted a demand letter to Ron’s Roast Beef, requesting a $400,000 settlement
from the company for negligence in contracting its telecommunications services from Advance
Technology. The attorney for Ron’s Roast Beef refused to pay the claim stating that: Ron’s had no
control over the hiring practices of Advance Technology. Ms. Pelley was prohibited by law from pursuing
any injury claim against her employer other than workers’ compensation, because the assault occurred
in Ms. Pelley’s “office.”

[Link] responsibility did Ron’s Roast Beef have for providing a safe home working environment for
Ms. Pelley?

* Ron's Roast Beef, as Ms. Pelley's employer, had a duty to provide a safe working environment
for her, even if that environment extended to her home office. This includes taking reasonable steps to
ensure that third-party contractors, like Advance Technology, maintain appropriate standards of
conduct and safety.

2. Will Ron’s Roast Beef be held liable for the damages suffered by Ms. Pelley? Will Advance
Technology be held liable?

* While Ron's Roast Beef may not be directly liable for the assault, the company could be held
liable for negligent hiring or supervision of Advance Technology. If it can be shown that Ron's Roast Beef
knew or should have known about the technician's criminal history, the company may be held
accountable.

Advance Technology is likely to be held liable for negligent hiring. The company's failure to
conduct a thorough background check on the technician could expose it to significant legal and financial
consequences.

[Link] should Ron’s do in the future to avoid potential liability in situations such as this?

 To avoid similar situations in the future, Ron's Roast Beef should:

Thorough Background Checks: Require rigorous background checks for all contractors and service
providers.

Insurance Coverage: Ensure adequate insurance coverage to protect the company from potential
liability claims.
 Regular Monitoring: Monitor the performance and conduct of contractors and service providers.

Clear Contracts: Establish clear contracts with contractors that outline specific safety and security
requirements.

Employee Training: Provide employees with training on workplace safety, including how to handle
interactions with service providers.

Incident Reporting Procedures: Implement a system for employees to report any incidents or
concerns related to safety or security.