Premise Liability Claim Case

Reasoning:
In recent years, the state of Maryland has decided a number of cases dealing with liability for injuries that occurred on the property of the defendant involving two different parties.
On the basis of the premise liability claim, our client has a case against the hotel. The premise liability claim is based on common law principles of negligence and derives from an establishment's lack of supervision, care, or control of the premises. RESTATMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §344 (1965). According to the premise liability claim, a tavern owner has a duty to protect his patrons, and thus be liable for negligence, if the following applies: control over a dangerous and defective condition; the owner had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the injury causing condition; and the harm suffered was a foreseeable result of that condition.
The landmark decision in Maryland that spoke on duty in a premises liability claim case is Scott v. Watson, 278 Md. 160, 359 A.2d 548 (1976). James Aubrey Scott, Jr. was shot and killed by an unknown assailant
New York Palace, Inc.170 Md. App.104.123. 906 A.2d 1028 (2006), an altercation took place at wedding reception after the reception ended. The guests were outside when some of the other guest went back in, passing a restaurant owner on the way, and assaulted the patrons who the guests thought had insulted their wedding reception. The case of Veytsman held that a duty in a negligence claim is an obligation to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another. There must be special relationship or connection between the parties involved in the case. A special relationship between a business owner and patron, gives rise to a duty to exercise due care to protect the patron when the following arises: the owner had controlled dangerous or defective condition; the owner had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the injury causing condition; and the harm suffered was a foreseeable result of that