Law Case Summary

Ni Nyoman Pradnyani A.W (Yani)

732493

Hospitality and Tourism Law

Citation:

Gwen L. Dille, et al., Plaintiffs v. Renaissance Hotel Management Company, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:10CV1983 TIA., reporter (June 25, 2012)

Decision by United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

Judge: Terry I. Adelman, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Gwen Dille and her husband Oliver Dille were the guests of

Renaissance St. Louis Grand and Suites Hotel on October 22, 2005. Ms. Dille fell in

the bathtub of Room 1539 and got injured of that accident. She suffered not only

physical damage but also monetary loss, including lost wages and medical expenses.

As the result of the damages, Ms. Dille alleged Renaissance Hotels (Defendant)

carelessness and negligence in failing to apply the grab bars in the bathtub and did not

warn the guests of the slippery condition. Defendant argues that it is a general

knowledge that a wet bathtub is slippery and can be dangerous. The danger of the wet

bathtub is so obvious and is not hard to identify. The question is, does the Defendant

liable and owes the duty of care towards the Plaintiff when in general knowledge

every bathroom is mostly slippery and the Defendant assumed that all people are

aware of that? The answer would be no. The Missouri Law states that the Hotel does

not have duty to protect the Plaintiffs against a condition that was open and obvious

as a matter of law.

The decision made by the Judges was according to the law Restatement

(Second) of Torts, 343A. The law states clearly that the owner of land is not liable

of the physical harm of the invitees that are caused by any activity or condition of the
land, which danger is obvious to them.

In this case, the Hotel assumed that the Plaintiff, Gwen Dille could protect herself

against the danger of wet bathtub, as going to bathtub is a daily activity for every

human. Plaintiff Gwen Dille must have had a good knowledge about the condition of

a wet bathtub. In the end, according to the law, the Hotel is free of liability because it

is obvious that a wet bathtub is slippery and dangerous if we do not walk carefully.

In my opinion, the Judges decision was fair enough. I would also say it is not

the Hotels fault and negligence of not providing a bathmat and did not warn the guest

because the condition of the bathroom is also obvious as well as the danger. It is Ms.

Dilles action itself that caused the injuries because she was not being careful enough.

Link:

https://scholar.google.ch/scholar_case?case=14553108566369489977&q=Dille+v.+R

enaissance+Hotel+Management+Co.,&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
 Citation:

Plaintiff Marian Ward was walking to a newspaper vending machine that

was located in front of Shoneys Appleby Restaurant (defendant). She attempted

to cut the corner and walk across the landscaped area instead of staying on the

paved sidewalk, but her foot hit something and she fell down. For present

purposes, we accept her contention that she tripped on the raised landscape

edging, which is approximately 2 inches higher than the adjacent sidewalk. Ward

suffered personal injuries in the fall. The question is, does the Defendant liable and

owes the duty of care towards the Plaintiff when the risk of cutting the corner is

unpredictable? The answer would be no. The Illinois Supreme Court states that

defendant does not have duty to protect the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Judges was according to the law Restatement

(Second) of Torts, 343A. The law states clearly that the owner of land is not

liable of the physical harm of the invitees that are caused by any activity or

condition of the land, which danger is obvious to them.

In this case, it is a general knowledge if we do not walk carefully while cutting

the corner, it may endanger ourselves. Plaintiff Marian Ward must have had a

good knowledge about cutting the corner and walk in a hurry. In the end,

according to the law, the restaurant is free of liability because the danger of

cutting the corner is obvious.