The five elements of negligence that apply to the case of Mr. Margrieter V. New Hotel
Monteleone, Inc are Duty, breach, cause in effect, proximal cause and harm (damage suffered as a proximal result of the defendant’s breach of duty). Duty refers to an obligation one has to another party. If duty “constrains and channels behavior in a socially responsible way” (Owen, 2007), then the
Hotel Menteloene has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect its guests from harm. Breach, an improper act or omission, can also be viewed as an element that exists in this case.
The hotel did not provide adequate security, as it did not replace the security personnel that had called in sick. It is particularly a breach if the hotel has determined that security is necessary to protect the property and its guests. It provided one employee to monitor the rear door, but the employee is not reported to have experience in security. Evidence of lack of security at exits and entrances,
As well as lack of camera security monitoring and alarms are all actions that created a situation in which
Mr. Margrieter could be abducted without notice, as could any other guest. Cause in Fact refers to the direct cause of one party’s action leading to the harm of another.
If the lack of adequate security has led to Mr. Margrieter’s injuries, then cause in fact can be shown.

Two men unlocked his hotel room door with a key. If this is the case, then cause in fact does exist.
It would be difficult for the hotel to explain how two men accessed the key, other than by lack of monitoring and security. In addition, the freight elevator, which was supposed to be locked by 11:00 pm, was not. The hotel did not follow its own procedure, which led to the abduction of Mr. Margrieter.
This meets the criteria for proximate cause as well. If proximal cause is a “close