Hotel, Restaurant, and Travel Law A Preventative Approach - Book Report/Review Example

Legal Issues in the Hospitality Industry Case 8-6 :DeLema v. Waldorf Astoria hotel, Inc. 588 F.Supp. 19 (N.Y. 1984)A hotel guest sues a New York hotel for the theft of an attaché case containing jewelry that was stolen while the guest was in the process of registering at the reception. The plaintiff Mr. José Maria Berga de lama had a reservation at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel maintained by the defendant. The plaintiff valued the jewelry in attaché case at about $300000.After depositions both parties agreed that the case is governed by N.

Y business law on limited liabilityThe plaintiff failure to disclose the value of the attaché case to the hotel staff limits the hotel liability to statutory amount of $500.The complainant was dismissed without prejudice and without cost since according to the law he has not declared the value of the property and the defended was cleared of negligence.Case 8-7: Salisbury v. St. Regis-Sheraton Hotel 490 F.Supp. 499 (N.Y. 1980)Hotel guests conclude their three day stay at a New York hotel. They checked their luggage at the hotel lobby with intentions of picking up the luggage later in the day.

The hotel staff was not informed about a cosmetic case containing jewelry valued at $60,000.The cosmetic case was not found when the guest picked up their luggageRelying of the provisions of New York Business laws, the plaintiff Mrs. Salisbury had ceased to be a Guest of the hotel the moment the theft occurred.The clerk of the court dismissed the complainant on the following grounds. The amount that could be recovered $100 which doesn’t meet federal jurisdiction.Case 8-8: Spiller v. Barclay Hotel 327 N.Y.S.

2d 426 (1972)A quest at the Barclay hotel sues the hotel for the loss of weaving apparel and jewelry lost on hotel steps.The plaintiff Ms. Sandler gave her luggage to the bellboy to watch over them in the cab area as she checked out. After checking out one of her bags was missing.The judgment of the case was that the luggage was lost due to negligence of the defendant.Case 8-9: Augustine v. Marriott Hotel 503 N.Y.S.2d 498 (1986)The plaintiff Mr.Bestry requested to be furnished with a moveable coat rack which was placed outside the seminar room in the public lobby.

After attending the seminar the plaintiff noticed his cashmere coat was missing and the coat rack had being moved.The plaintiff sues the hotel.The case was dismissed on the following grounds. The defendant didn’t have the duty to protect the cashmere coat as the plaintiff hanged the coat at his own risk.Case 8-10: First American Bank v. District of Columbia 583 A.2d 993 (D.C. 1990)The case involved the disappearance of a bank dispatch bag from a vehicle owned by First American Bank which was towed to the impound lot by the Towing company and District of Columbia.

The plaintiff sues the two parties for their failure to exercise ordinary case.The court ruled that the district and the towing company were only reliable for gross negligence. This is because the towing was legal. Upon further examination the District and Towing were cleared of the offence as they did not have sufficient possession of the vehicle.Case 8-11: Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Collection Chevrolet, Inc. 570 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1990)Value rent-a –car left its car at Collection care for repair.

Value discovered the car was missing and duly informed the police. The car was recovered but was badly damaged.Value sued Collection for negligence as a result of the disappearance of the car.The jury ruled that Collection has exercised due care on the car and was cleared of negligence as accused by the plaintiff.Case 8-12: Proliance Insurance Co. v. Acura 2001 WL 766894 (Oh. 2001)The plaintiff Proliance insurance sued Acura for damages. The plaintiff claimed to have a comprehensive insurance cover that covered the renting of cars.

A car was delivered to Acura for repairs by Mr. Gallagher but it was reported to be damaged and consequently Proliance paid him to compensate him for renting a replacement.The case was ruled in favor of Proliance Insurance as Acura was found reliable of allowing the theft to take place.Case 8-13: Ellerman v. Atlanta American Motor Hotel Corp. 191 S.E.2d 295 (Ga. 1972)The plaintiff Ellerman parked his automobile in a parking facility belonging to Atlanta motor hotel .He was required by the defendant to leave his ignition key which was used to park the car at a location unknown by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was aware that automobiles are parked owners risk. The car was later stolen.The plaintiff sought to recover the personal items that were in the car.The judge ruled that Atlanta Motor hotel did not have liability over the loss of the items in the car. Case 8-14: Waterton v. Linden Motor Inc. 810 NYS2d 319 (2006).The plaintiffs are quest at a hotel where they park their car at a garage operated by the hotel. They did not inform the hotel staff about on where they have parked their car.

The car is vandalized and expensive items are stolen. The plaintiff sues the hotel for the damages.The judges rules that complainant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in negligence and therefore the case is dismissed.Case 8-15: Kuchinsky v. Empire Lounge, Inc. 134 N.W.2d 436 (Wis. 1965)This is an appeal case where the appellant raised various issues on whether the Empire lounge operator was guilty of negligence.The plaintiff was in the restaurant where he removed his overcoat and hanged it in hooks provided.

The overcoat is later stolen.The court ruled in favor of the defendant. It was the complainant responsibility to look after their personal items.Case 8-16: Shamrock Hilton Hotel v. Caranas 488 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1972)The plaintiffs are quest at the shamrock Hilton hotel. After having a meal at the hotel they forget a purse which is given to the cashier. The cashier gives the purse without asking identification to a man who claims the purse.The plaintiffs sue for negligence in delivering the purse.

The case is ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Case 8-17 Conboy v. Studio 54, Inc. 449 N.Y.S.2d 391 (1982)The plaintiffs attended a party at studio 54 in Manhattan. They check their coats about 14 coats with the coat room attendant and are given a receipt but no fee is charged for the service. After the party one leather coat is missing the plaintiff sues the studio.The court found the defendant guilty of negligence and awarded the claimant a sum of $1350 the value of a new coat. Works citedTop of FormMorris, Karen, Norman G.

Cournoyer, and Anthony G. Marshall. Hotel, Restaurant, and Travel Law: A Preventive Approach. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2008. Print. Bottom of Form