Objective: The objective of this lab is to better understand the duty of care a hotel owes to all its guests and identify the elements that determine if a hotel has been negligent in its responsibilities.

Jordan House Hotel Ltd. v. Menow and Honsberger (1973) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

The plaintiff Menow, a frequent and well-known patron of the defendant hotel's bar became intoxicated after having been served with beer during the course of a late afternoon and evening. At about 10 p.m., Menow was ejected from the hotel by the employees, the owner-operator then knowing that Menow was unable to take care of himself by reason of intoxication and that he would have to go home, probably by foot, by way of a main highway on which the hotel fronted.

Within half an hour after Menow was ejected from the hotel, and while he was walking near the centre line of the highway, he was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant Honsberger and as a result sustained serious injury. On the basis of the findings by the trial judge and by the Court of Appeal Menow was awarded damages against the defendant hotel and against the defendant Honsberger under an equal apportionment of fault among all three parties. The defendant hotel appealed the judgment with the Court of Appeals.

Identify the elements of negligence in the above case:

1. Was there an existence of a duty of care?

1. Was there reasonable foreseeability?

1. Did the Hotel breach its duty of care?

1. Was there an Injury resulting from the breach?

1. What was the proximate cause of the injury by the breach?

6.How does the 'Reasonable person' tenant apply in this case (p. 87)