Follow the doc to deliver work

Part 1

Best Posting 1. Introduction

Best Posting 2: Unit 04: What Do You Think?

 What Do You Think?

David Green’s credit card was charged $320.00 at the Holiday Inn Express. The charge was a “No Show” fee when Mr Green did not arrive at the hotel on the night of August 15th, 2016 which he booked using the hotel’s website. The hotel held the room for Mr Green until 1 am the next morning.

Mr Green calls the hotel when he gets his credit card statement to complain about the charge and to state that he never made the actual reservation. When the hotel checked the information that was on the website confirmation, Mr Green’s correct address, phone number and credit card information was on the booking. This is the information the hotel used when billing his credit card for the room.

Mr Green however, maintains that he did not make the reservations and demands that the “No show” charge be removed from his credit card.

Do you think the hotel is justified in charging Mr. Green for the “No show?”

How could the hotel prevent such misunderstandings in the future?

Best Posting 3: Unit 07: Case Discussion

 Case Study Example

A kitchen worker fractures her skull. Injured member of staff unlikely to work again.

When an inspector visited the restaurant to investigate the circumstances surrounding the serious injury sustained by a member of staff, he quickly became concerned that the floor surface in the kitchen was very slippery with even the smallest amounts of water or grease on it.

The inspector found that the tiled floor appeared to be in good condition yet it still felt slippery even when the tiles looked to be clean and dry. When just small amounts of water got onto the floor it was found to be very slippery. To make matters worse, some areas of the kitchen floor sloped, increasing the slip risk. Kitchen staff could be seen walking with a very peculiar gait to try to avoid slipping. Floor ‘safety’ mats had been put down in some parts of the kitchen, such as in the dish wash area, but these were slippery to walk on too, especially when wet. Cleaners had removed these mats at the time of the worker’s accident, leaving her to walk on the slippery tiled floor that quickly became contaminated with food waste, water and oily residues.

The worker experienced an uncontrollable slip and hit her head on the hard-tiled floor. She was rushed to hospital where she drifted in and out of consciousness, suffered seizures and spent a lengthy period in the hospital’s ICU.

The company’s safety records examined by the Inspector showed that there had been other slip incidents in the area but the response had been to provide the most heavily contaminated areas, such as the dishwashing area, with matting – matting that was itself slippery, especially when wet. Scientists from the Health and Safety Laboratory examined the tiled floor surface and the matting and confirmed that the Inspector was right to conclude that risk of slipping was unacceptably high because of the lack of slip resistance of the tiles and the matting. The floor surface was clearly not fit for the purpose.

The company were also aware of numerous other slip accidents in similar situations at their other sites around the region. The Inspector served an Improvement Notice on the company to require them to deal with the slip risks to employees. After a number of other options were considered by the company, but concluded to be inadequate or inappropriate, they eventually replaced the floor surface with one that was suitable for use in an area where the total elimination of floor contaminants would never be possible. The new floor was specified to provide enough grip, even in wet or contaminated conditions.

ISSUE: The injured employee sues the company. Would the plaintiff win? Why or why not? If you think the plaintiff would win, how much in damages do you think the plaintiff will be awarded? What type of damages do you think would be awarded?

Part 2: Best Responses to Peers

Best Response to peer 1: Unit 4: Case Discussion (case study listed below)

Response: I totally agree with my fellow classmate. Mr. Green has already agreed to all the terms and conditions mentioned by the hotel and even gave all the information as my friend stated.

Case Discussion: David Green’s credit card was charged $320.00 at the Holiday Inn Express. The charge was a “No Show” fee when Mr Green did not arrive at the hotel on the night of August 15th, 2016 which he booked using the hotel’s website. The hotel held the room for Mr Green until 1 am the next morning.

Mr Green calls the hotel when he gets his credit card statement to complain about the charge and to state that he never made the actual reservation. When the hotel checked the information that was on the website confirmation, Mr Green’s correct address, phone number and credit card information was on the booking. This is the information the hotel used when billing his credit card for the room.

Mr Green however, maintains that he did not make the reservations and demands that the “No show” charge be removed from his credit card.

Best Response to peer 2: Unit 7: Case Discussion (case study listed above)

Response: I completely agree with this and the hotel must provide safer working conditions for their staff. The company must build a trustful relationship with their staff so that the staff can rely on them and feel like they are working in a safe environment .

Best Response to peer 3: The response number 3 was given for unit 06 case study described below.

Response: Hi Patrina i totally agree with all stge points you mentioned. Yes colin could have been blamed for the whole only if he had not been intoxicated but after been intoxicated to that extent it was the hotel’s duty to arrange him a ride safely back to home and it was their duty to make sure they do not serve the customer to the level of intoxication. They should have stopped serving him when he started showing signs of intoxication.

Unit 06: Case Discussion

 Case Discussion

Colin Cruikshank and some friends attended an event at the Delta Hotel. Colin had several alcoholic beverages. Around 2:00 a.m. he was on his way back up to his hotel room. He was fooling around and jumped up and down inside the elevator. His jumping caused the elevator’s safety devices to become operational. The elevator stopped between the 7th and 8th floors. Colin and his friends pushed various elevator buttons to get the elevator moving again. They pressed the emergency button (alarm Bell) repeatedly. After about 20 minutes there was no response. So Colin and his friends pried the elevator doors open.

The hallway floor was approximately five feet below the elevator floor and the plaintiff decided to jump down. He said that just before he jumped, the elevator doors closed and hit him on the arm. The other two witnesses said nothing about the elevator door closing; however, one of them said that when the plaintiff landed he heard him slip.

The plaintiff fell down the elevator shaft causing severe cuts to his head, leg and arm. Miraculously he lived and did not break a bone. Still conscious, Mr. Cruikshank managed to pull the fire alarm and was assisted out of the elevator shaft by hotel staff. The plaintiff spent 12 days in the hospital. Since then he has substantially recovered although he still suffers from severe scars on his leg and arm, and he is no longer able to play competitive sports to the extent the he did before the accident. Furthermore, at the time of the incident the plaintiff had a blood alcohol reading of 157 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood. To have reached that level the plaintiff must have consumed a minimum of 17.4 ounces of hard liquor or 12.2 bottles of beer. He also told hospital staff that he used marijuana.

Best Response to peer 4: Unit 7: Case Discussion (case study listed above)

Response: I am in concurrence with my fellow student, and it is definitive that the complainant will win the case of sueing the company. It is very evident from the inspector’s statement that the floor was slippery. Per the guidelines, even the damage caused by a tiny drop of water makes the company liable to pay the damages. Also, the company had a history of having similar instances before, so it proves that the company did not rectify the past mistakes to support themselves. Ideally, the company should take corrective action and preventive plans on the first instant itself.

Best Response to peer 5: Unit 04: What Do You Think

Response: In my opinion hotel did the right thing to charge Mr. Green for No Show. The reason for that is clearly stated in the norms of the booking, which were acceptable to Mr.green on time for the booking. On top of that, if he had any changes in a plan so he was liable to notify the hotel before time and would have requested any compensations. From the hotel's perspective, I believe they should do courtesy by sending email reminders to the clients before making any changes for reservation.

Case Discussion: David Green’s credit card was charged $320.00 at the Holiday Inn Express. The charge was a “No Show” fee when Mr Green did not arrive at the hotel on the night of August 15th, 2016 which he booked using the hotel’s website. The hotel held the room for Mr Green until 1 am the next morning.

Mr Green calls the hotel when he gets his credit card statement to complain about the charge and to state that he never made the actual reservation. When the hotel checked the information that was on the website confirmation, Mr Green’s correct address, phone number and credit card information was on the booking. This is the information the hotel used when billing his credit card for the room.

Mr Green however, maintains that he did not make the reservations and demands that the “No show” charge be removed from his credit card.