Element one is Duty: The duty to protect is clearly part of the hotel’s responsibilities. The hotel has a duty to anticipate foreseeable dangers and take necessary precautions to protect guest in their care. Specifically, hotel duties include but not limited to: adequate supervision, control access within the facilities e.g. elevator, hence to the guests' rooms and its surroundings and has the appropriate cameras, alarm and exits to be guarded.
Element two is break of duty: The hotel failed to comply with the established of care and once the standard of care is established under element one, there must be a determination that the defendant fell short of that standard or breached that duty for the plaintiff to recover on the basis of negligence.
Element three is causation: A test often is used to determine causation is the “but for “test- but for the action or lack of action of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been injured. The hotel breached his duty that caused Mr. Margreiter to be seriously injured; he suffered permanent damage to his brain, traumatic neurosis and suffered epilepsy after the injury among others.
Element four is proximate cause: Did the negligence of the hotel caused Mr. Margreier to be injured?. YES. Some cutoff line must be drawn between the “but for” causation and events that contributed to the injury of Mr. Margreiter. Most likely all business needs to create a safe environment for their customers to discourage criminal acts within the facilities.
Element five is damage: Obviously Mr. Margreiter incurred in bills. There was evidence that his injured caused a substantial loss of earnings and earning capacity, pain and suffering and Loss of