Hospitality Business Law Report: Analyzing Legal Scenarios and Issues

This report analyzes two scenarios related to hospitality business law. The first scenario examines the issue of negligence, specifically focusing on a restaurant owner's liability for a customer's injury in the restroom. The report applies the principles of negligence, duty of care, and contributory negligence, referencing cases like Donoghue v Stevenson and Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman to determine the owner's responsibility. The second scenario addresses a hotel guest's refusal to pay for a second night's stay and explores the hotel's legal options against a local newspaper. The analysis incorporates principles of contractual obligations and the hotel's right to detain guest property to clarify the legal position of the parties involved. The report provides a comprehensive legal analysis, applying relevant case law and legal principles to arrive at conclusions regarding liability and contractual obligations within the hospitality industry.

Running head: HOSPITALITY BUSINESS LAW
0
HOSPITALITY BUSINESS LAW
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author’s note

1HOSPITALITY BUSINESS LAW
Issue
The issue involved in this scenario whether Minh has any responsibility or liability for
the injury of Van.
Rules
In the given scenario at the question, the rules or principles of negligence in tort, as well
as contributory negligence will be applied here to understand such an issue. The term negligence
means a failure of exercising any ethical or appropriate rule of care, which is expected from any
natural prudence to apply in the particular situation of a fact (Luntz et al. 2017). Negligence is
one of the parts of tort law, which has involved harm instigated by an act of a person in a method
of carelessness feasibly with mitigating the situations. Negligence has been constituted by
committing such actions and should fulfil four elements of representing it. In the case of
Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932, it has held by the House of Lord that any person has a duty of
care towards his neighbour failing which he will be liable for breach of his duty of care to his
neighbour. There must be a violation or infringement of such obligation on the part of the
wrongdoer. For such infringement, the plaintiff should have suffered an injury or loss. And
lastly, there should be a straight and proximate relation between the loss suffered and the
wrongful act done by the defendant. The court of law in the case of Caparo Industries Plc vs
Dickman 1990 has introduced a remarkable decision of constituting a ‘threefold test’ such as
firstly; there must be a reasonable foreseeable; secondly, proximate relation between the
wrongdoer and plaintiff; thirdly, it should be ‘just fair and reasonable’ for imposing liability.
The term ‘contributory negligence’ will apply in this scenario, which means the plaintiff has

2HOSPITALITY BUSINESS LAW
failed to exercise his own safety with reasonable care (Dongen and Verdam 2016). The
Australian court had decided in the case of Froom vs Butcher 1976 that the defendant can take a
defence of contributory negligence when the plaintiff was negligent at the time of happening
such incident for such injury.
Application
In the given scenario, Minh is the owner of a restaurant, and there is a facility of the
restroom for the customers. He has decided to turn off lights of restrooms to reduce such
restrooms by outsiders. Van an outsider has come to use that restroom and has been injured due
to darkness.
Applying the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson in the above situation, Minh has a duty of
care towards Van for such facilities of the restroom, and it constitutes hospitality towards the
others. However, he has restricted the usage of restrooms only for its customers who have
consumed food from there. As Van was not the customer of Minh, then Minh will not be liable
for such injury caused to Van.
Applying this case Caparo Industries Plc vs Dickman in the given scenario, Minh has a
responsibility towards Van, but he can take a defence of contributory negligence on the part of
Van.
Applying the case Froom vs Butcher in this scenario, there is contributory negligence
from Van as he has used the restroom without consuming any food from the restroom and there
is a strict instruction of that. Therefore, Minh will not be liable for such injury of Van.

3HOSPITALITY BUSINESS LAW
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that Minh will not be responsible for the injury of Van as
there is contributory negligence from the side of Van.

4HOSPITALITY BUSINESS LAW
References
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2
Dongen, E. and Verdam, H., 2016. The Development of the Concept of Contributory Negligence
in English Common Law. Utrecht Law Review, 12(1), pp.61-74.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 532
Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. and Harder, S., 2017. Torts:
cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.