Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
732493
Defendant.
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:
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
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
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