You walk down the steps at a resort in Aruba and you slip and fall just where the steps were mopped moments ago. You complain and they ask you if you had any pain or injury and you said no but you are very disappointed. So, they give you an extra bottle of rum and ask you to sign a waiver to confirm that you cannot call the police on them about this matter in the future. The waiver does not say it prevents civil claims but prevents you from making criminal allegations.
Peace.
How do you respond and do you sign the waiver?
You respond in your understanding that your legal rights to sue are not affected. Its not an effective waiver yet a waiver should appear on the resort reservation agreement and exclude civil liability for slip and fall or shock in the room from seeing cock roaches or any where on the resort property. It should exclude any and all injuries for any time spent in the sea and water; including injuries from animals. It's a waiver that does not address your rights to a civil claim. So, why not sign it? You do not need to call the police here as this is not a criminal matter. If you do, they could charge you with mischief.
Your claim is under the law of Tort.
The Hotel's Duty of Care.
We would say that the hotel has an obligation to ensure that all walk ways are safe, not obstructed and that the surfaces are dry as not to cause risk of any slip and fall. This is called the hoteliers duty of care. They work hard and take all reasonable precautions. A hotelier's duty of care is the same as occupiers liability and there is a line of cases that already exist on this. This confirms there is a duty of care.
But, there was water on the ground.
But, you did fall.
Is there a breach of the duty of care?
We would now say that there is a breach of the hoteliers duty of care.
You have a potential claim.
Have you suffered harm as a result of that breach?
The only problem is that you have no injuries.
If you have no injuries then you have suffered no loss. If you have suffered no loss, it matters not that you fell and that you were almost injured. There is no injury. There is no loss and the hotelier does not have to compensate you as there is no loss for which you must be compensated.
You don't want to be injured on vacation anyway. So, be careful. It's a beautiful vacation destination.
To understand the basics of Tort law, read any summaries of the case:
1. Anns v. Merton that discuses the issue of proximity and foreseeability in establishing a duty of care where none has been yet identified under the law in a particular scenario or case in a two stage test; and
2. Read also Caparo v Dickman and it's discussion of the three stage test in addressing Tort liability where we follow this three stage standard without discussing proximity or foreseeability when wee see a duty of care is clearly already established under the law in any particular scenario such as the the occupiers liability or hotelier's liability scenario in this case. The three stage test is the basis of this Aruba peace article.
IFANA 50,000
By SDGCK.
![]() |
SDGCK: We would like to help. Ask your question. You pay/donate. |
No comments:
Post a Comment