Question

Help me created a case brief of equal employment opportunity commission (EEOC). THE FOUR SEASONS MOTOR INN, INC., and D.B. INVESTMENT 1984-NMCA-044, 101 N.M. 723, 688 P.2d 333 April 19, 1984

Answer 1

Pittard v. Four Seasons Motor Inn, Inc., 688 P.2d 333 (1984),101 N.M. 723

Lee PITTARD, as Father and Next Friend of Cody Pittard, and Kim Pittard, Individually were Plaintiffs-Appellants, against The FOUR SEASONS MOTOR INN, INC., and D.B. Investment Properties, Inc., its successor in interest, being the Defendants-Appellees, with D B investment properties incorporated the other defendant being a successor in interest to the Four Seasons.

The case has been filed to initiate action against David Leroy Perales for availing compensation for damages suffered by Cody Pittard upon being sexually assaulted by David Leroy Perales. On January 15th, 1978 Mrs Pittard and her son Cody were present on the premises of hotel four seasons motoring incorporated, as guests of the parents of Mrs Pittard who are registered guests of the hotel. the hotel was conducting promotional activities including hosting of a special super Bowl promotion.

Perales was working at the hotel as a steward for assisting in the preparation of the banquet on January 15 and had admitted to be under influence of alcohol when he reported for duty and for the consumption while on duty. Perales left the bank which area still on duty and came across the boy close to the swimming pool area of the hotel and succeeded in enticing the boy into a bathroom locked the door and sexually assaulted the boy. Perales was apprehended within the kitchen area after the crime was known and admitted to having sexually assaulted the boy. the hotel failed to produce the personnel file maintained on Perales as part of pretrial discovery contending that the file had been lost.

The plaintiffs sought recovery compensation against the hotel under various causes of action namely:

Respondeat superior

Breach of duty of care for safety of guests and invitees

Failure to provide adequate security at the premises

Negligent hiring without adequate background check

Negligent retention staff under the influence of alcohol and

Inadequate supervision.

What is in dispute here is whether the hotel owed a duty of care, if the file was actually lost, and whether the hotel was culpable for negligent hiring and retention.

The duty of care to indicate negligence on the part of the hotel needs to understand that a hotel may not be liable for wilful or negligent acts of its employees not within the scope of their employment, the obligation under duty of care extends to protection of the guests by exercising reasonable care assuring safety with no evidence of negligence noticeable. Reasonable care cannot be held to be strict liability standard acts of others. Respondeat superior is a doctrine holding a party responsible for acts of the agent in this case an employer being liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their employment. The law applicable here would be negligence tort case and not strict liability as the defendant was not responsible for acts of the employee outside the scope of employment duties. Perales was third party present on the premises in the case as he was not considered as being an employee performing regular duties.

Discovery sanction for lost personnel file as it was established that the file has been lost much before the incident occurred and the court did not find any culpable conduct on part of the hotel on verification.

The negligent hiring and retention claims admission for recovery against an employer for assault by an employee even when outside the scope of employment. The hotel was clearly responsible for negligent hiring and retention as it was aware of the drinking problem perales admitted to have and also of becoming violent when drunk. He was terminated from his earlier job as dishwasher for being drunk while working and had been asked to leave the premises on another occasion when he interested on being rehired and became violent when asked to leave as he was drunk and was forced of the property by security personnel under threat of criminal prosecution. Hotel four seasons rehired images to word knowing that the role required him to have contact with customers and invite and also purse negligent in closely supervising and employee who was capable of becoming violent when drunk. The defendant was also aware that the employees reported drunk on the day of the incident and also have access to alcoholic beverages which we consume regularly while on duty with other employees being aware of this behaviour. This makes the incident foreseeable to the employer and has clear indication of the employer negligent in hiring and retention.

A tort case is one where one individual causes an injury to another which the injured party Can take legal action by suing for damages. In a tort lawsuit, which can be filed through representation by a personal injury attorney, the party which sustains the injury also referred to as plaintiff in civil courts, sues the party causing injury referred to as a defendant in court. The harm that is caused maybe to an individual personally, impacting his health or well being, or to property owned by him. The aim of a tort case is to identify whether an injury has been caused by specific intent or negligence of the other party. The major factors to be focused on in every tort case to ensure fair judgement are duty involved, breach of Duty, causation of injury and existence of injury. They should exist and underline sufficient breach of duty on the part of the defendant which resulted in an injury to the plaintiff, for the tort case to be sufficiently strong. Tort cases may be of three types intentional cases, negligence cases or strict liability cases.

The given case is for injury arising out of negligence as  injury resulted from an unintended action. It would amount to an act of negligence as the person should have applied due care to ensure his action would not cause injury to another. a person does not provide the required duty of care owed to another person. Most negligence torts arise out of a property owner failing to act reasonably and ensuring the property is entirely safe for visitors and users and will not result in harm or injury. Strict liability torts are those cases where responsibility for the resultant injury or damage can be imposed without requirement for proof of negligence or direct fault. It involves an action which resulted in subsequent injury or damage to another person The standard of care refers to the normal level of prudence, caution attention and watchfulness that every reasonable person would exercise in any given circumstances to ensure that the person's actions do not cause damage or injury to another. If a person's actions do not meet the normal standard of care which an individual would apply, then their action has failed to meet the duty of care which all people are required to have towards others.