A hotelier’s duty of reasonable care has already been established. The following incidents show how deficiencies in reasonable care can result in guest injury and consequent liability for negligence.
Case No. 1
At a limited-service property flagged by a major franchisor, motel guests were enjoying the indoor pool. An adult female moved to join an unrelated couple seated in the whirlpool spa. Upon grasping an aluminum handrail, the woman received an electric shock strong enough to contract her wrist muscles so severely that she experienced a Smith’s Fracture, ultimately requiring surgery. The woman’s granddaughter, who earlier had received a milder shock from the rail, was able to forcibly pry her grandmother’s hand from the rail.
A relative then turned the “off” button for the whirlpool jets motor, and the family reported the incident to the front-desk employee, who said, “We have had similar problems before.” Even after the injured woman displayed her distorted arm, the clerk failed to convey concern. The clerk did call the hotel GM, off premises for the day, but remained too busy to rope off the whirlpool or put out any warning sign for several hours. The woman filed suit against the property owners, who responded that they were not responsible as they had no notice of the hazard.
In fact, investigation showed that management had previously received two reports of electric shock. Each time, an electrician had found loose grounds and connections but could not discover noteworthy voltage differentials. He did opine, “When water is present … in the right conditions, voltage differential does not have to be great.” But he concluded that “if a problem exists, it’s intermittent.”
Significantly, the spa hot tub recently had been retrofitted to comply with new state and federal law. During the process, a wall-mounted emergency stop switch was added. Plaintiff could logically contend that someone working on the spa’s mechanicals may have connected something improperly.
Another issue raised was management’s response. The established protocol was: (1) offer medical attention, which the clerk did not; (2) call the GM, which she did; (3) complete a report, which she failed to do; and (4) have the injured party fill out a report, which she did. Instructed by her GM to shut down the spa, the clerk failed to do this for several hours.
These omissions demonstrated a lack of attention and concern—i.e., of reasonable care—by the clerk. When the GM received the electrician’s reports that he could not detect a worrisome problem, she neither informed the owners nor the property’s insurer, who likely would have required a thorough investigation.
Thus, it could be argued that the GM was negligent in her failure to do more to discover and fix the hazard. By delegating total management responsibility, the property owners maintained inadequate oversight. The legal doctrine of respondeat superior imputed the negligence of the GM to the hotel-owning company, which became the primary defendant.
Case No. 2
In a 5-star, franchised North African hotel, an American guest was directed to a restroom on a lower level, fell down the stairs, and suffered injury. A professional accident reconstruction engineer found the stairway out of compliance with applicable building codes. In her opinion, any one of the out-of-code measurements could have produced a fall, but in combination the hazard was increased.
More significantly, a witness observed two hotel employees carrying Plaintiff up the stairway and propping him against a wall, while Plaintiff cried loudly to them to support his head. Seemingly not understanding English, they ignored his pleas. He suffered permanent paralysis.
For decades it has been common first aid knowledge that in cases of injury that might involve the head and cervical spine, the rule is to assume the person may have a spinal injury and not to move him unless necessary to open the airway or to preserve life (from threat of fire or rising water). If moving the victim is necessary, the head and neck, especially, must be stabilized. The goal is to keep the cervical spine immobile until qualified medical help arrives.
While it is not expected that all employees be trained in first aid, it is expected at a 5-star hotel that a reasonable number of staff will be trained and certified in life-saving first aid, and that at least some personnel so certified would be on premises 24/7. This training would include specific instructions on what to do should staff come upon an injured guest.
The fact that the employees who moved Plaintiff egregiously and wrongly, despite his verbal protests, may not have understood English is a non-issue. Had these employees been properly trained in basic first-aid responses, they would have kept the Plaintiff immobile while summoning medically qualified persons. This knowledge should have been set forth to employees in their primary language.
When the employees discovered Plaintiff at the bottom of the stairway, one should have hastily summoned a qualified medical response person and someone fluent in the relevant language, while the other employee stayed with Plaintiff to keep him immobile while help was en route.
The franchisor and its management subsidiary failed in their duty of reasonable care by (1) knowingly allowing a frequently used stairway to be in violation of building codes and placing no warning of this foreseeable hazard and (2) failing to implement adequate staff training in first aid responses to injuries, resulting in the unsafe actions of employees in moving Plaintiff.
These negligent acts and omissions were determined to be the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s severe injuries.
