Plus, where and how the plaintiff's injuries occurred in Margreiter are far more questionable than how the plaintiffs in Nordmann occurred. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs in Nordmann were injured in the hotel while the possibility exists that the plaintiff in Margreiter could have been injured off the premises and by someone who had no access to the hotel. What hurts the defendant hotel in Margreiter is its failure to properly secure the freight elevator and to maintain its normal security staff on the night of the incident. Because of these factors, the inference is created that the hotel failed to maintain the proper security level. Beyond this, however, there is little connection between this failure by the hotel and the plaintiff's injuries. The argument by the defendant hotel that the injury could have occurred in a manner totally unconnected to the hotel is highly plausible. Due to the fact the plaintiff was intoxicated...

The failure of the defendant hotel to maintain higher security given the number of individuals present in the facility on the night of the incident is unacceptable. It was clearly foreseeable that there was a significant need for more security and it was breach of duty for the hotel to fail to provide such security. Additionally, the fact that there is no doubt that the plaintiffs injuries occurred on the premises provides greater support for the case presented in Nordmann vs. The case in Margreiter.
The facts in both cases support the findings by the courts. Although it is arguable that there is a proximate cause problem in Margreiter, such argument is not present in Nordmann.

Negligence 2