A Wrong Verdict: Helton V. Glenn.
Helton et al. v. Glenn Enterprises, Inc. is a compelling case that has significant implications for the hospitality industry. The case pitted the plaintiffs David Helton and his spouse Charlotte Helton against the defendant Glen Enterprises Inc. dba Limar Hospitality who operated an inn in Knox county. The Heltons sued the hospitality company, seeking compensation for the loss of their property, which was lost while the two boarded at the inn. The case went to a jury trial, which concluded that the defendant had no liability for the damages. The court’s seemingly bizarre decision was based upon the fact that while the plaintiff’s rig, which hosted the stolen property was marked close to the inn, the space they parked in was not on the defendant’s property. I’m afraid I have to disagree with the court’s decision because I believe the defendant infringed upon the customers’ right to information, neglected to protect the customers from foreseeable crime, and deceived the plaintiff; hence should be liable to compensate the plaintiff on damages.
Glenn enterprises neglected to protect the customer from foreseeable harm. In the case, Mr. Helton approached the desk attendant of the inn and inquired on whether his rig would be safe. The desk attendant responded affirmatively, and on the next day, the rig had been stolen. The desk attendant fails to provide necessary information regarding the safety of the Helton’s property. The attendant had been aware of several incidences of car theft from the parking lot around the inn. Based on the precedent set in McClung vs. Delta Squared Limited, the duty of a business to protect its customers is balanced between the cost the business would incur to procure the necessary and the gravity of the harm that could be caused without security (Martin & McMyne, 2015). Therefore, if a business would incur high costs to protect the customers against petty crime, then the business does not have a duty to install such security. However, in this case, the desk attendant only cost would have been to tell Mr. Helton that there had been many car thefts in the area. According to Mr. Helton, if the desk attendant had informed him of the incidences of theft, he would have driven the expensive rig to a safe place and traveled with the family van. Based on the McClung case’s rubric of balancing duty, Glen enterprises caused Helton great harm when the cost of protecting the customer would have been cheap. Therefore, they are liable because they deny Helton information.
The defendants also failed to tell the Heltons that the parking lot where they had parked was not the property of the hospitality company in what can be considered a treacherous act. The Tennessee Consumer Protection Act states that if a business deceives a customer, then they are liable to compensate the consumer for any damages incurred (Reed, 1990). In this case, the attendant neglects to inform Mr. Helton that the parking lot space where the rig was parked was not the property of Glen enterprises. This neglect can be construed as a deceptive act performed intentionally to get the business of Mr. Helton. The desk attendee’s actions can be counted as a deceptive act because Mr. Helton behaved rationally when he believed that the desk attendee who said that parking at the parking spot in question was alright (Helton et. Al, 2016). Therefore, under the TCPA, Glen enterprises should compensate for damages suffered by Helton.
References
Helton, Sherman, et. al(2006). Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, at Knoxville. Annals of surgery, 258(3), 212.
Martin, S. W., Bates, R., & McMyne, M. (2015). Are you as guilty as the criminal? Liability for criminal acts of third parties and employees. FDCC Quarterly, 64(2), 131.
Reed, J. L. (1990). The Tennessee Consumer Protection Act: An Overview. Tenn. L. Rev., 58, 455.