if, however, the plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant hotel failed to follow its own procedures in regard to the elevators and guests' rooms to the point that security was compromised then the plaintiff may be able to prove an actionable breach.
The injury and damages aspect of the plaintiff's case are clearly present and should not be the easier portion of the plaintiff's case. The nature of the plaintiff's injuries are serious and if the breach of duty is proven the plaintiff's injuries should make him a sympathetic figure to the jury.
The final requirement is that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the proximate cause of his injuries was the negligence of the defendant. Essentially, the plaintiff must be able to prove that but for the defendant's negligence the incident giving rise to the plaintiff's injuries would not have occurred. Based on the facts presented, proximate cause should not a significant problem for the plaintiff.
The defendant hotel will certainly present the...
The defendant will argue that the plaintiff's judgment was so impaired that he did not understand what happened or how it happened. Unfortunately for the hotel, however, if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the hotel breached its duty of providing a secure environment the plaintiff's intoxication may be irrelevant. In order for the defendant's defense to have any effect the defendant will have to demonstrate that but for the plaintiff's intoxication the injuries and damages would not have occurred. Based on the facts presented this is a difficult challenge.
As the facts do not indicate in what way the defendant may breached its duty a precise determination of liability is difficult to ascertain. if, however, the facts at trial were to reveal that the defendant's actions failed to provide a secure environment for the plaintiff, the plaintiff's case becomes much stronger.
Negligence I
