Abstract
Courts are now forcing hospitality operators to assume greater responsibility for protecting guests from crime on their premises. The obligation to exercise reason able care for customer safety has been applied to hotels whose guests have been attacked by intruders, with courts giving close scrutiny to these hotels' security measures and how they compare to security policies in other hotels. Previous incidents of crime and location in a high-crime area are key factors in determining the extent of the hotelier's legal duty.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banks v. Hyatt Corp., 722 F.2d 214 (La. 1984)
2.
Early v. N.L. V. Casino Corp., 678 P.2d 683 (Nev. 1984)
3.
Garzilli v. Howard Johnson's Motor Lodges, Inc., 419 F. Supp. 1210 (N.Y. 1976)
4.
Harris v. Pizza Hut, 455 So.2d 1364 (La. 1984)
5.
Nixon v. Royal Coach Inn, 464 S.W.2d 900 (Tex. 1971 )
6.
Nordmann v. National Hotel Co., 425 F.2d 1103 (La. 1970)
7.
Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon, 744 P.2d 43 (Colo. 1987)
8.
Tobin v. Slutsky, 506 F.2d 1097 (N.Y. 1974)
9.
Toscano Lopez v. McDonald's, 238 Cal. Rep. 436 (Cal. 1987)
10.
Virginia D. v. Madesco Investment Corp., 648 S.W.2d 881 (Mo. 1983)