Negligence Law in Action at the Harrison Resort, B.C.
Chris · April 11, 2007
Much of the law applicable to negligence in the accommodation sector in Canada is derived from occupier’s liability cases.
Not surprisingly, the best way to protect a hospitality organization from liability is to fulfill the duties and obligations owed by an occupier (of a premises) to invitees, licensees and even trespassers. For the most part, the duty of care owed to hotel guests follows that of a “reasonable person”.
Swimming pools and saunas are a common feature in hotels, and they can be a hotbed for liability claims when accidents happen. Public health legislation dictates standards for elements such as depth markers, diving boards, lighting, supervision, security, and water quality. In general, hoteliers are expected to exceed the requirements of such regulations.
Back in 1996 an occupier’s liability case went before the B.C. courts after a 16 year old hotel guest at the Harrison Hot Springs Resort was seriously burned when she was immersed in the source pool that feeds the resort’s swimming pools several hundred feet away.
The source pool contains steaming water with temperatures of about 60 degrees Celsius. On the night of the accident, the source pool was not lighted and there were no warning signs posted. The hotel was aware that young people sometimes swam in the pool at night, and they admitted that they were the occupier of the source pool and so responsible for its upkeep, design and maintenance.
Surrounding the pool was a wire fence above a low wall. The young guest (ie/ plaintiff) climbed onto the fence intending to climb down into the pool which she claimed she thought was a hot tub that was closed for the night. The top of the fence was over four meters from the ground. The fence was rusted, and the stanchions were partially detached from the upper beam. Part of the beam gave way resulting in the guest’s immersion in the pool. She sustained serious burns that required multiple skin grafts to over 20 percent of her body.
During subsequent litigation, the courts ruled that the source pool presented an unusual danger which required a higher standard of care to ensure the safety of hotel guest and patrons. The court felt it was foreseeable that young people would try to climb the fence, and that reasonable steps should have been taken to prevent this from happening.
The hotel had breached its duty of care in failing to ensure the fence was in proper condition. The changes the hotel made to the source pool enclosure since the accident showed that the hotel could have reasonably made the structure safer in the first place.
However, the plaintiff’s own actions were found to be foolhardy, and she had failed to take reasonable care for her own safety. She was found to be 75 percent liable, and the hotel was found to be 25 percent liable. The guest received 25 percent of her lost wages, loss of earning capacity, cost of future care, counselling, and special damages.
We recently stayed at the Harrison Hot Springs Resort and checked out the “scene of the crime”
With all due respect would YOU jump into this source pool? Check it out for yourself below.
Linkage
[Harrison Hot Springs Resort]
[Jim Butler’s Hotel Law Blog]
