Manhattan is a major business hub and tourist draw for people around the globe, and property owners have a responsibility to ensure guests are welcomed into places reasonably safe for their stay.
But just because injury occurs at a hotel doesn’t mean a premises liability lawsuit is inevitable. In order to prevail with a claim, plaintiffs need to show the property owner had either actual or constructive knowledge of the danger, and further failed to address it or at least warn about it.
Actual knowledge means the property owner had real knowledge of the actual condition, either because they had witnessed it or had been told directly or had some solid evidence of it. Constructive knowledge, on the other hand, means the property owner should have known about it.
Because proof of actual knowledge can be tough to establish, most cases of premises liability rely on the property owner’s constructive knowledge – the “should have known.” This is done by proving the condition lasted for such a period of time that, through the ordinary exercise of reasonable care, the hazard should have been discovered, or, the hazard occurred with such frequency that it was foreseeable.
Our Manhattan hotel injury attorneys know proving constructive knowledge isn’t always an exact science, but we have extensive experience in thorough investigation of these cases, and we know what kind of evidence the court is going to analyze.
It was the absence of the establishment of constructive knowledge in a hotel injury case in Tennessee that recently resulted in summary judgment in favor of a defendant there. According to court records in Parker v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., plaintiff was injured when a shower bench in a hotel collapsed while he was seated on it.
Prior to the collapse, plaintiff, who was paraplegic, notified defendant the bench seemed loose and requested a different room. Another room was not available, but defendant promised to fix it. Defendant sent maintenance to the room. Maintenance did not see any defect, but nonetheless screwed the bench more tightly to the wall. Later, while plaintiff was seated on bench, it collapsed, causing him serious injury.
Plaintiff sued the hotel franchise owner, alleging negligence. Defendant asserted a comparative fault defense, claiming the builder negligently installed the shower bench by not adhering to manufacturer specifications, and had concealed that defective installation to him with sheetrock.
Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add builders to the complaint, but it was dismissed as time-barred. Defendant then moved for summary judgment on grounds that it was the builder who was to blame and he had no actual or constructive knowledge of the danger, and therefore no duty to correct or warn.
The trial court agreed, and that decision was later affirmed by the state supreme court.
The Law Offices of Nicholas Rose, PLLC offers free consultations. Call 1-877-313-7673.
Additional Resources:
Parker v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., Sept. 12, 2014, Tennessee Supreme Court
More Blog Entries:
Fajardo v. Schapiro – New York Premises Liability Cases Can be Challenging, Aug. 25, 2014, Manhattan Hotel Injury Lawyer
