Negligence concepts and legal principles

¶ … liability of the hotel in this situation will be governed by the statutes and common law of the State of Louisiana. Presently, there are no national standards in relation to the various liability situations that hotels find themselves involved. In general, guests in most hotels can expect to enjoy the standard contract and tort rights that apply to most legal relationships.

Security and safety are expectations of all travelers and are to be expected when checking into most facilities. As to security, hotels are responsible for providing and maintaining basic security for all of their guests. From a legal standpoint this responsibility is defined as the hotel's duty of care. Considered among the hotel's legal duties are the responsibility to make sure that the locks to each room are secure as well as the windows, to ensure that the entrance ways and hallways are properly monitored, to maintain the confidentiality of each guest, and, in some situations to place surveillance cameras near elevator accesses and outdoor entrances. In cases where the hotel has experienced prior breaches of security or the hotel is located in a known dangerous area such information should be provided the guests.

In the case presented, the plaintiff will have to establish that the defendant hotel not only had the duties previously stated but also that said hotel breached these duties. Further, the plaintiff will have to prove that he suffered damages and that said damages were proximately caused by the defendant hotel's breach.

The plaintiff will have little difficulty establishing that the defendant had a duty to provide him with secure housing. Such duty is well established in the common law and by statute. The problem that the plaintiff will encounter is proving that the defendant breached one its duties. Based on the facts presented the plaintiff is electing to argue that the defendant was negligent in not controlling access to the elevators and guests' rooms. In this regard, the issue of breach will depend on what efforts the defendant and its employees exercised relative to such access. Under normal circumstances, the defendant hotel would take ordinary measures to ensure that access to the elevators was protected and that access to the individual rooms is secure. 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.