Review the given scenario and answer the following questions:
Dangerfield, Inc., a Delaware c-corporation, owns and operates a ski resort in New Hampshire. Certain features of the business, comprising valet parking, are handled by a sister corporation, Continental Concessions, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company. Both Dangerfield and Continental are wholly owned subsidiaries of Sandman Resorts, Inc., a New Hampshire s-corporation.
Sara Hartman arrived at the resort on January 16, 2011, a day on which six inches of snow had fallen. She was planning to spend a week at resort as a guest. Hartman pulled to a short line of cars waiting for the valet. The driveway had been cleared several hours earlier, however between one and two inches of snow had since accumulated.
Greg Mitchell, a Continental valet parking attendant (an employee of Continental) gave Harman a receipt for her car. On the back of the receipt were the words "The Management is Not Responsible for Damages Incurred by Valet Parking Customers." Harman put the receipt in her purse devoid of reading it.
Hartman then got out of her car and Mitchell entered the car to park it. Hartman walked to the front of her car and turned right, between her car and the car ahead, toward the ski lodge entrance. At similar time, Mitchell shifted the car into drive and slowly started driving forward. Suddenly he looked up, saw Hartman in the space between the two cars (about four feet) and attempted to brake. His foot slipped from the brake onto the accelerator and the car moved forward, crushing Hartman between the two cars, causing serious injuries. Mitchell jumped from the car to assist Harman, however slipped on the snow and as well suffered serious injuries.
Hartman sued Dangerfield, Continental and Sandman. She contended that Continental was liable for the negligence of its parking attendant and for independent negligence, that Dangerfield was liable beneath alternative rationales of premises liability, apparent agency or single business entity, and "alter ego" or "mere instrumentality," and that Sandman was liable since Continental and Dangerfield were its mere instrumentalities.
In a separate lawsuit, Mitchell sued Hartman, Continental, Sandman and Dangerfield. He contended that Hartman was negligent by walking in front of her car knowing that it was about to move. He alleges that Sandman and Dangerfield permitted multiple dangerous conditions to exist, which contributed to his injuries, therefore his claim is based on strict liability. His claim against Continental is for his wages for the pay period that comprised the date of his injury.
Evaluate the claims made by Hartman and Mitchell, and evaluate the defenses available to Sandman, Continental and Dangerfield. What liability, if any, do the three defendants owe to the two plaintiffs, or to each other?
Beyond such two lawsuits, what additional legal claims might such defendants face?
Answer the questions and use the given in your analysis to support your conclusions.
Law and Business Decisions Impactful Law Principles Distrust of the Law and Misconceptions.