HTM 411 CASES QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS WITH COMPLETE
SOLUTIONS 100% CORRECT!!!
What was the outcome of Sherman v. Marriott Hotel Services?
Answer: No discrimination was found, as Kerr followed a facially neutral
lock-out policy.
What was the ruling in Hernandez v. Erlenbusch?
Answer: The case was discriminatory based on national origin.
What was the decision in Daniel v. Paul?
Answer: It was not considered a private club, but rather a place of public
accommodation, impacting interstate commerce.
What happened in Rodriguez v. Barrita Inc?
Answer: The defendant violated the ADA because individuals in
wheelchairs could not access the goods and services.
What was the result of Alexis v. McDonald's?
Answer: No discrimination occurred; the individual was asked to leave
based on conduct.
What was the ruling in University Hotel Development v. Dusterhoft Oil?
Answer: The defendant was not liable as there was no contract, and the
defendant never responded.
What did the court decide in BBQ Blues Texas v. Affiliated Business Brokers?
, Answer: The trial judge was correct because the fee was for finding the
buyer, not for real property, so the statute of frauds did not apply.
What was the outcome of Adams v. H&M Meat Products Inc?
Answer: The lower court was correct because the way the contract was
delivered and accepted created an exception to the statute of frauds.
Shadburn v. Whitlow -ANSWER✔✔-plaintiff could not prove the cause of the
accident was negligent
-in defendants favor
Palace Bar Inc v Fearnot -ANSWER✔✔-not responsible Bc Garlen died of natural
causes
Fields v Robert Chappell Association Inc -ANSWER✔✔-hotel is liable, hotel
should have been aware of the issue and fixed it
Copeland v The Lodge Enterprises -ANSWER✔✔-the hotel did not get summary
judgement Bc the plaintiff produced expert witness that stated the spider should
not have been able to get into the hotel
Anderson v American Restaurant Group -ANSWER✔✔-the restaurant was liable
for injuries, they could have foreseen and prevent the accident
Eisnaugle v McDonalds -ANSWER✔✔-the defendant was liable, tile did not meet
the codes (negligent per se)
Taboada v Daly Seven Inc -ANSWER✔✔-defendant did not get summary
judgement, could have been foreseeable (high crime area)
ANSWERS WITH COMPLETE
SOLUTIONS 100% CORRECT!!!
What was the outcome of Sherman v. Marriott Hotel Services?
Answer: No discrimination was found, as Kerr followed a facially neutral
lock-out policy.
What was the ruling in Hernandez v. Erlenbusch?
Answer: The case was discriminatory based on national origin.
What was the decision in Daniel v. Paul?
Answer: It was not considered a private club, but rather a place of public
accommodation, impacting interstate commerce.
What happened in Rodriguez v. Barrita Inc?
Answer: The defendant violated the ADA because individuals in
wheelchairs could not access the goods and services.
What was the result of Alexis v. McDonald's?
Answer: No discrimination occurred; the individual was asked to leave
based on conduct.
What was the ruling in University Hotel Development v. Dusterhoft Oil?
Answer: The defendant was not liable as there was no contract, and the
defendant never responded.
What did the court decide in BBQ Blues Texas v. Affiliated Business Brokers?
, Answer: The trial judge was correct because the fee was for finding the
buyer, not for real property, so the statute of frauds did not apply.
What was the outcome of Adams v. H&M Meat Products Inc?
Answer: The lower court was correct because the way the contract was
delivered and accepted created an exception to the statute of frauds.
Shadburn v. Whitlow -ANSWER✔✔-plaintiff could not prove the cause of the
accident was negligent
-in defendants favor
Palace Bar Inc v Fearnot -ANSWER✔✔-not responsible Bc Garlen died of natural
causes
Fields v Robert Chappell Association Inc -ANSWER✔✔-hotel is liable, hotel
should have been aware of the issue and fixed it
Copeland v The Lodge Enterprises -ANSWER✔✔-the hotel did not get summary
judgement Bc the plaintiff produced expert witness that stated the spider should
not have been able to get into the hotel
Anderson v American Restaurant Group -ANSWER✔✔-the restaurant was liable
for injuries, they could have foreseen and prevent the accident
Eisnaugle v McDonalds -ANSWER✔✔-the defendant was liable, tile did not meet
the codes (negligent per se)
Taboada v Daly Seven Inc -ANSWER✔✔-defendant did not get summary
judgement, could have been foreseeable (high crime area)
