Summary Of The Helton's Court Case

In the case study presented we will learn about the Helton family travel plans and the tragedy they endured by having their trailer stolen right across the street from their accommodations. You will also learn how the Fairfield Inn motel decided to deal with security measures in order to save their profits.
Travel Plans The Helton family who is use to traveling on weekends checked into the Fairfield Inn motel. The family was towing a trailer containing a drag racing car, golf cart, racing equipment, and other personal property. The plaintiff noticed that there was no were for them to park their 36 foot trailer within the hotel’s designated parking lot. The plaintiffs decided to park their trailer in a paved parking area in front
of the motel. The parking area was not marked informing gests that this area was not a parking zone or that it did not belong to the hotel. The motel’s manager decided that they were not going to discourage clients from parking in the unmarked parking lot.
They also made the conscious decision to not advice of the increase of robberies in the area. Mr. Helton asked the motel clerk prior to leaving his trailer in the parking lot if it was ok for him to leave it there. The motel clerk responded that it should be fine. The morning after, the plaintiffs discovered that their trailer had been stolen. Trying to inquire about prior theft to the same parking lot the motel’s clerk responded that there had not been any theft prior to the plaintiffs stay.
The Court Case The Helton’s decided to sue Glenn Enterprises, Inc. for compensatory damages arising out of the theft of their 36 foot trailer, drag racing vehicle, and other personal items. The Helton’s felt that the motel should be held liable for their monetary loss. The plaintiffs brought into evidence the knowledge of motel’s management regarding prior vehicle theft outside of their property. They also added that even thou management was aware of the problems; they decided not to take action and refrained from increasing motel’s security. The court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s case. Even thou the hotel decided not to upgrade their security or inform guest of previous robberies in the area. The plaintiffs could not prove Glenn Enterprise, Inc. had owner liability because as previously stated they did not own the parking lot
in question. I agree with the court’s decision in siding with the defendants. If the property in question is not owned by the company they cannot find the defendant’s liable for property they do not own. In the case of McClung v. Delta Square Ltd the Supreme Court gave the approval to appeal. The case in question would review and determine if the business owner was liable for damages happening on the business properties that were caused by the criminal acts of third parties. In that case, the plaintiff's wife went to a shopping to shop at Wal-Mart. As the plaintiff’s wife was returning to her car in Wal-Mart’s parking lot, she was captured at gunpoint by a fugitive from Chattanooga, who raped her and involuntary placed her into the trunk of her car where she suffocated to death.
Mr.
McClung sued Wal-Mart and the owner of the shopping center. His argument to the court was that the defendants were negligent in the way they chose to provide or execute security measures for the parking lot. He also argued that their negligence was the immediate cause of Mrs. McClung death. When challenged with the defendant's indication for summary judgment, the plaintiff trusted, in part, upon records from the Memphis Police Department, which indicated that from May, 1989 through September, 1990, when plaintiff's wife was abducted, roughly 164 criminal events had occurred on or near defendants' parking lot. The Court of Appeals stated. A business normally has no duty to shelter customers from the unlawful acts of third parties which occur on its grounds. The business is not to be considered as the enforcer of the safety of its customers, and it has no complete responsibility to implement security measures for the protection of its customers. However, a duty to take realistic steps to protect customers arises if the industry knows from past involvement, that criminal actions against its customers on its premises are reasonably probable, at some particular time. (Tenn
1975)
Conclusion
It is unfortunate that the Helton’s property was stolen. In this case the hotel decided held important information back from its guests to save on their bottom dollar. The courts could not find them guilty because the property in question was owned by a separate entity.