The subsequent surgeries and medical issues were proven to have a permanent effect upon his livelihood as well as permanent brain damage. With the lack of earnings, the trauma to his life, and his pharmaceutical expense, the Court did not find it necessary to reduce his award or find any evidence of fault other than the hotel. Part 2 -- the Normann case -- the Court indicates that regarding safety, "The law imposes upon innkeeper's at least ordinary or reasonable care to protect their guests against injury by third persons, and some cases call for the exercise of a higher degree of care." The claims that the hotel permitted criminals to wander through the hotel, filed to maintain a competent staff, adequate security personnel, even to summon to police or have the hotel security officer investigate the incident all show gross negligence on the part of hotel management and owners.

Part 3 -- a) the Norman case was stronger than the Margreiter case in some ways because it had more detailed and robust evidence of longer term negligence by the hotel; however, an exception with the Margreiter case was a clear warning of premeditated criminal activity prior to the event. B) the presumption that an innkeeper has a basic, minimum standard of security to provide to its guest was clearly lacking at the hotel; as was adequate security. No one would believe that a hotel of 1200-1500 people could be adequately protected with no security equipment, emergency alarms, and one security guard (who was, at the time, ill and off...

C) Heat sensing devices were immaterial to this particular case; the burglary could not have been prevented even if fire or heat devices were installed. D) the Margreiter case was easier to decide for two reasons: 1) There was precedence in Norman, meaning the responsibility of the hotel was already argued and a precedent set, and 2) Damage to Margreiter was medically proven, his lack of fault backed by testimony, and the clear negligence of such a large hotel with an inadequate staff apparent.
Part 4 -- Bringing ethics into either Margreiter or Norman would rely on utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism, however, or deontology, argues that the morally right action is that one that is in accordance with the basic moral and ethical rules governing the most happiness -- or to keep order within society. John Stuart Mill did argue that sometimes it was right to violate the general ethical rules if there was a higher need (life or death, etc.), but also argued that the rightness or wrongness (e.g. morality) of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule that is applied to the overall action. For rule utilitarianists, then, the reason rules and templates exist in society is so that there will be greater harmony for the greater good because of a structure that states not following the rules would cause. So, for the greater good of the potential guests, which could number as many as 30,000 plus per month, ethically the Court has to insist that there be a standard of care for guests to expect…