Legal Analysis: Qualityplus Hotel Liability and Negligence Report

This report analyzes the liability of the Qualityplus Hotel in three distinct scenarios involving guest injuries. In the first scenario, Nigel is injured in the gymnasium after disregarding safety warnings, leading to a conclusion that the hotel is not liable due to Nigel's negligence. The second part examines Olive's electrocution in the shower due to faulty installation by an independent contractor, with the report concluding that Olive has a high probability of receiving compensation from the hotel, as the hotel is ultimately responsible for guest safety and can seek damages from the contractor. The final section addresses Pamela's fall from the third floor due to climbing on railings, and the report finds that the hotel is not liable, attributing responsibility to the parents' negligence. The report uses legal principles like occupier's liability and contributory negligence to assess the potential outcomes of each claim.

Student Name
report

1|P a g e
Part - A
In the given situation, Nigel and his family members visited the hotel Qualityplus, for seaside
holidays. On the first night, Nigel went to the gymnasium room and met with an accident in
which he suffered from the personal injury and faced damage to its personal assets. From the
case, it has been analysed that Nigel uses the gymnasium room after reading the danger
warning which is showing the ignorance from the Nigel part and meet with an accident. Hotel
Qualityplus has put a note on the door that “no admittance between 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. in
the gymnasium room” as it is dangerous without the supervision of the trainer. The hotel has
already given the guidelines that using the equipment without the trainer and guidance may
cause danger to you and your personal property. But Nigel ignores the warning and enters the
room and starts using the machine and gets harmed by the equipment there. Therefore, it
could be inferred that if Nigel uses the gymnasium room after reading the danger warning
which was showing the ignorance from the Nigel part then it was his mistake as he
negligently started with the exercise without taking any one’s instruction. This accident
occurs due to his mistake.
In Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117 case, it was held that when a warning of the danger
was given then it resulted to discharge of liability of an occupier and if anything negative
happen then occupier cannot be held liable for the damage suffered by the person who avoids
the warning.1 According to the law, a hotel can only be liable to give the compensation to
Nigel only if the hotel has not given the warning or knowledge of danger in advance.
Although section 2 (4) (a) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (the Act) provides that the
warning is not sufficient to eliminate the liability in all circumstances unless actions are not
taken for reasonable safety; however, in this scenario, the warning cover the danger relating
to the gymnasium.2 In the given case, the whole knowledge about the warning and dangers
has been provided to the Nigel in advance then also. Claim by Nigel against the Qualityplus
Hotel for his injuries and damage to his watch can only be raised when the damage was
caused due to the mistake or ignorance of the hotel and members of the hotel present there.
The hotel property is not liable to give the compensation to Nigel and his family for the
1 David Branson, An Introduction To Health And Safety Law: A Student Reference (Routledge
2014).
2 Brendan Greene, Course Notes - Tort Law (Routledge 2016).
REPORT

2|P a g e
damage done to them. Therefore, it could be inferred that Nigel and his family should avoid
this case as it will be no use to them if they will continue with the project.
On the other hand, Nigel has ignored the sign of danger which was mentioned on the door
and enters into the gymnasium room. The gymnasium room was filled with some faulty
weightlifting machines and equipment’s and was crushed in that equipment. According to
Nigel, the hotel was responsible for the personal injuries and damage were done to his watch.
Nigel has claimed the compensation from the hotel on his injuries. The Nigel wants to claim
the compensation for both the personal injuries and damage done to his expensive watch from
the hotel Qualityplus.
But in the real scenario, the damage was done due to the Nigel ignorance and his
overconfidence to operate the machines and equipment in the gymnasium room. The mistake
was done by the Nigel only and he is the only person who is responsible for his personal
injuries and damage to the watch.3 The Nigel should not be liable to claim the damages from
the hotel Qualityplus as it was not the hotel who have done something wrong. The damage
was done due to the mistake and ignorance of the Nigel. So from the above discussion, it can
be concluded that the claim rose by Nigel against the Qualityplus Hotel for his personal
injuries as well as damage done to his watch will not be reimbursed by the hotel. Qualityplus
Hotel warned the Nigel in advance not to use the gymnasium equipment without any
supervision.
Conclusion:
After assessing all the detail of cases, it could be found that there would be no compensation
given to Nigel and his family for the damages occurred to him due to his wrong doing. The
loss occurred to Nigel was due to his own mistake not from the mistake made by Qualityplus
Hotel towards its clients. It was Nigel’s mistake and he should be liable for his negligence
behaviour. From the above discussion, it can be concluded that Nigel has the least
probability to get the success in receiving the claim.
3 Mark Roberts, Occupiers Liability (Law Society of South Australia 2003).
REPORT

3|P a g e
Part - B
Nigel’s wife, Olive, was taking a shower and she was electrocuted when she turned on the
shower. Olive harmed by the electricity switch used for the shower which has been recently
been installed by the Rara plumbers in the Qualityplus hotel.
According to Olive, Rara plumbers are liable to compensate her for the injury caused. Olive
was electrocuted when turned on the shower switch and got hurt. Rara plumbing has recently
installed the shower and is responsible to make the switch connections correctly without
harming anyone while making use of it. But Olive got hurt while using the shower which was
recently installed by the Rara plumbers.
On the other side, Rara plumbing has recently installed the shower with full diligence and
care but due to some technical conduct olive has to suffer from the electric shock while using
the shower. The Rara plumbing has performed their task as good as they can. They have
provided their services to a hotel with due care to the Qualityplus hotel.
Section 2 (4) (b) of the Act provides that in case of independent contractor, the occupier
cannot be held liable if the occupier has acted reasonably by taking appropriate care to satisfy
himself that the work carried out by the independent contact is competent.4 The court
provided similar judgement in Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 1 WLR 1553 case in which it was
held that reasonable care by occupier is necessary to avoid liability arise due to the act of
independent contractor.5
The hotel did not take appropriate care and it did not check the work of Rara plumbing in
their hotel. Qualityplus hotel assumed that the Rara plumbing has performed their work with
the care and utmost faith, but there were some technical problems has been aroused.
According to the law, the party who has suffered the loss or damage due to some
mishappening in the hotel and due to its property, the hotel will be responsible for that until
and unless the hotel has given a specification for the same.6 In this case, using the shower in
4 Peter Smith and William West, West & Smith's Law Of Dilapidations (Estates Gazette 2017).
5 Simon Tolson, Dictionary Of Construction Terms (Routledge 2014).
6 John Morrell, Richard Foster and Gary Hay, Local Authority Liability (Jordan Publishing Ltd
2015).
REPORT

4|P a g e
the room is a normal and genuine behaviour of the guest and it is implied that all the
resources and material available in the room can be used the guest in the hotel room. Using
shower in the washroom is a normal act by the olive from which she gets hurt. The claim
should be received by the olive by the hotel only not by the Rara plumbing.
The hotel can receive the damage done from the Rara plumbing due to the inconvenience
caused to their clients due to the service received by them is found to be faulty in nature.
Hotel Qualityplus can claim the Rara plumbing for the damages done to their guest. The
health care industry is responsible for the safety and leisure part of the guest as they are the
only aim which the hotel Qualityplus was unable to provide to their guest. The claim raised
by olive against the Qualityplus hotel or Rara plumbing for her injuries. However, if all the
case and details are analysed, it could be inferred that hotel can receive the damage done
from the Rara plumbing due to the inconvenience caused to their clients due to the service
received by them and Olive should have the right to receive the claim7.
From the above discussion, it has been analysed that the Olive should have the right to
receive the claim. The claim should be given by the hotel to olive for damage done to her. As
olive is the direct customer of the hotel not of the Rara plumbing. So olive will take claim the
compensation from the hotel as she is the guest in the hotel Qualityplus and not of the Rara
plumbing. Rara plumbing is found to be the third party for the olive. And as according to the
contract law, the person who has suffered the damages will get the claim from the party
which is directly responsible for that act. No third party will be included in this. In this case,
instead of the plumber, client will ask for the damages from the hotel. He is the main party
who is liable to the damage occurred to clients. If client faces any issues and problems due to
the any wrong doing by the any of the staff members and contract employees of the hotel
then management or owners of the hotel would be liable to compensate the loss occurred to
clients8.
Conclusion:
7 John Morrell, Richard Foster and Gary Hay, Local Authority Liability (Jordan Publishing Ltd
2015).
8 Peter Smith and William West, West & Smith's Law Of Dilapidations (Estates Gazette 2017).
REPORT

5|P a g e
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the Olive has the probability to get claim
from the Hotel Qualityplus. The probability to get success in receiving the claim is high. The
crux of the report is that in this case, Hotel Quality Plus would compensate the loss occurred
to clients or any wrong doing to him. It will be responsibility of the hotel to compensate its
clients for any damages and loss occurred to them due to the wrong doing of its employees
and contract employees. The Hotel Quality Plus would be liable to pay all the damages and
loss occurred to its clients in this case.
Part - C
In the last situation, daughter of Nigel, Pamela has been found badly injured. She climbs
through the ornamental railings in the corridor and falls from the third floor. In this situation,
it can be considered that her parents should take care of the small child when she was
roaming on the floor. Falling from the third floor while playing on the railings is considered
to be an accident for which no one is responsible except their parents. Claiming the amount
for the falling of Pamela due to the carelessness of Nigel and Olive is not relevant and
appropriate in the eyes of law. Claiming the amount from the hotel can be considered as the
wrongful act. Therefore, it is found that asking for compensation from the Hotel would
neither be legal nor ethical as there is no mistake done by the hotel.
Qualityplus hotel can rely on the defence of contributory negligence given under the
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 to eliminate its liability arise in this scenario because Pamela
failed to take appropriate steps to ensure her safety.9 The staff and management of the people
in the hotel are found appropriate. Qualityplus hotel and its management have no fault. On
the other hand, it can be considered that Qualityplus should increase their safety and security
measures in the hotel. This incident can be considered an accident in which the Pamela is a
minor and she don’t know the place to play and the place to stay.
The hotel and its staff are not liable to pay the compensation for the injury done as they are
not directly responsible for the injury done to Pamela.10 In this case, the claim will not be
9 Jacqui Gilliatt, Teaching And The Law (Routledge 2013).
10 Luke Bennett, 'Judges, Child Trespassers And Occupiers' Liability' (2011) 3 International
Journal of Law in the Built Environment 126-143.
REPORT

6|P a g e
given against the injuries done to Pamela. Only when hotel was directly responsible or
negligence of the acts done by its contract person was found
While analysing the situation, it can be considered that carelessness of the Nigel and Olive
can be seen as they leave Pamela alone on the floor. Nigel and Olive were responsible for the
injury done to the Pamela. In the given situation, the hotel Quality plus will not be found be
guilty as the child was alone in the corridor.11 According to Nigel and Olive, the claim should
be received for the injuries done to their daughter.
From the above discussion, it can be said that the Nigel and Olive will not get any claim for
the injuries done to Pamela by the hotel Qualityplus. As the hotel was not responsible for
injury done to Pamela and the hotel and its staff were not responsible for the accident done in
the corridor. In both the cases, hotel would be liable to pay all the damages to Nigel and her
family as employees of the Hotel are working in the best interest of the hotel and if anything
wrong done by its employees then the same will be compensated by the hotel. The crux of
this discussion is that hotel would see and analyse the situation and identify who has been
responsible for the damages and if the damages to clients have occurred due to the employees
and staff members of the hotel then it will be compensated by the hotel to them.
Conclusion:
After assessing the cases, it could be concluded that Pamela has the less probability to get the
claim from the Hotel Qualityplus and she would not be having claim from the Hotel
Qualityplus due to her own mistake. The crux of this report is that the hotel and its staff are
not liable to pay the compensation for the injury as they are not directly responsible for the
loss occurred to Pamela. In this case, the claim will not be given against the loss occurred to
Pamela.
11 Legislation, 'Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957' (Legislation.gov.uk, 2018)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/31/contents> accessed 13 November 2018.
REPORT

7|P a g e
Bibliography
Bennett L, 'Judges, Child Trespassers And Occupiers' Liability' (2011) 3 International Journal
of Law in the Built Environment 126-143
Branson D, An Introduction To Health And Safety Law: A Student Reference (Routledge
2014)
Gilliatt J, Teaching And The Law (Routledge 2013)
Greene B, Course Notes - Tort Law (Routledge 2016)
Legislation, 'Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957' (Legislation.gov.uk, 2018)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/31/contents> accessed 13 November 2018
Morrell J, R Foster and G Hay, Local Authority Liability (Jordan Publishing Ltd 2015)
Roberts M, Occupiers Liability (Law Society of South Australia 2003)
Smith P and W West, West & Smith's Law Of Dilapidations (Estates Gazette 2017)
Tolson S, Dictionary Of Construction Terms (Routledge 2014)
REPORT