It's actually not that simple, because these weren't "guests" of Brianne's. They weren't staying in her room.Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
Yes, because as the hotel’s contracted guest, Brianne accepted responsibility for the damages caused by HER visitors to the room, and leaving the children unsupervised to wreak havoc in the hotel is the responsibility of the party who paid for the room. But Brianne could then sue her adult friends of the minor who participated in the crime for her share of the damages.
Remember when you came to meet me in the Rio sportsbook? You specifically came into the Rio to visit me. However, if we were walking around after that, and you destroyed things in a drunken rampage, the responsibilty would be yours, not mine. This would even be true if you came up to my room for an hour or two. On the other hand, if you got drunk and destroyed stuff in my room, then it would definitely be my responsibility, unless I could quikcly have you detained. See the difference?
I still believe that Brianne should only legally be responsible for what was done by her daughter, and not by the other kids.
However, there's the ban issue, where Resorts World could simply take the position that they get reimbursed, or they will ban both Tommy and Brianne permanently. That mostly makes this a moot point, since Tommy wants to be able to go back.
But from a legal standpoint, it's not so clear. I'm not saying I'm sure you're wrong, but you might be.
Reply With Quote