Problem:
Oscar owned an upscale hotel located near a busy highway. During a hailstorm, Patrick asked Oscar for a room, but Oscar turned him away because Patrick could not afford Oscar's prices. Patrick slept in his car on the side of the road. The hail did approximately $3,000 in damages to his car, and Patrick was robbed of about $4,500 in cash and other belongings. Which one of the following statements is true? Select one: A. Patrick does not have a viable negligence claim against Oscar because Oscar had no legal duty to protect Patrick, who was not a guest at his hotel, either from the weather or from theft. B. Patrick has a viable negligence claim against Oscar, but only for $4,500, because hotel operators have no duty to protect guests from dangerous weather. C. Patrick has a viable negligence claim against Oscar, but only for $3,000, as Oscar's negligent act of refusing to serve Patrick was not the proximate cause of the robbery. D. Patrick has a viable negligence claim against Oscar for $7,500 because Oscar failed to provide safe and secure premises for Patrick, who suffered various damages as a result.