The case involves a guest of the hotel in Jamaica, where a guest was severely injured while working out in the fitness center of the hotel.
Issues:
What jurisdiction and law should apply for the case?
The jurisdiction and law that should apply here is the Jamaican law, in Jamaica. The US law in Miami cannot apply because, as stated in 28 U.S.C subsections 1391(a), a US court only has jurisdiction in such cases over the defendants where at least one defendant is domiciled in the particular judicial district. This principle has been affirmed in the case of Steven Prophet & Carmen Elena Prophet v International Lifestyles, Inc. et al. Further, pursuant to the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Miami court has no personal jurisdiction over the defendant since the injury arose out of a hotel in Jamaica where they are domiciled. Thus, it is the Jamaican courts can exercise jurisdiction over the defendants. Further, based on the forum nonconveniens doctrine and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(3), it would be more convenient for the case to be heard in Jamaica where the injury occurred and action arose than if it were heard and determined in Miami. Moreover, according to Pakamanis (2015), under the forum non conveniens doctrine, a US court has a discretion of dismissing a case with transnational elements in the defendant’s favor if it is proved or it is evident that the foreign court is the most convenient and appropriate forum and also where the claimant would have an adequate and alternative remedy in the foreign forum. The factors that a court considers under this doctrine include public and private interest factors and the existence of an adequate alternative forum. Hence, in this case, given the circumstances, Jamaica is the most appropriate forum.
Was the hotel negligent for failure to provide reasonable safety for the guests including res ipsa loquitur?
Yes, as Steele (2010) observes, under the common law and US statutory law principles, occupiers or property owners are under a general duty to keep their premises in reasonably safe condition. According to Winseman v. Travelodge Corporation (1967), and Newalk v. Florida Supermarkets, Inc (1993), occupiers are under a duty of protecting those who enter or visit their premises legally against those dangers and defects of which they are or reasonably ought to be aware. The same law applies to hotel operators and owners as was stated in Marhefka v. Monte Carlo Management Corp (1978) and Goldin v. Lipkind (1950). In Sambito v. Southland Recreational Enterprises, Inc (1980), it was held that owners of theme or amusement parks, golf resorts, and hotels have a duty to give reasonable notice to guests or invitees of any concealed or latent peril that the owner knows or should have reasonably been aware. Moreover, in U.S. Security Services Corp. v. Ramada Inn, (1996), it was stated that hotels have a non-delegable duty to their guests of providing reasonably safe premises. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the hotel owes its guests an obligation to ensure safety. For, in Beulah Larson v St. Francis Hotel (1948), the First District Court that for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply to such cases, it has to be shown that the defendant was under exclusive management and control of the premises when the injury occurred. The defendant in this case was and is hence liable since objects made by man rarely fall from nowhere where someone does not breach their duty of care. According to Horsey and Rackley (2015), under common law, an occupier owes a duty to any person who legally visits their premises as long as failure to carry out inspections to detect suspicious defects in the buildings is proved.
Was the hotel negligent for failure to provide reasonable medical care for guests or a warning that medical care was unavailable locally?
Yes, based on the decision in Prophet v Great Resorts Ltd, the hotel was negligent for failing to provide reasonable medical care for its guests or warn them of lack thereof. However, as was held in Lohre v Intreprinderea Mechanica Navala Galati (1988), the question as to whether a legal duty is owed by a defendant and hence negligent or a duty to warn of the absence of medical care is a question of law for the court to determine. This obligation is also based on the knowledge of the owners of the hotel of the existence of medical care in the immediate vicinity. In Fuhrer v Gearhart by Sea, Inc., the Oregon Supreme Court held that the duty to warn would depend on reasonableness and foreseeability of the need for medical care to guests.
Is the fitness equipment manufacturer negligent for providing defective equipment?
Stemming from the decision in Donoghue v Stephenson (1932), manufacturers are under a duty not to supply defective products. Further, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals held in Williamson-Green v. Equipment 4 Rent, Inc. that equipment manufacturer might be held negligent for the provision of defective equipment. This was also the case in Barton v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. where it was held that a purchaser of a defective lawn mower could bring an action against manufacturers for designing equipment defectively. However, in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., it was held that to maintain such an action, a plaintiff has to demonstrate that the equipment was in a defective condition at the time it was obtained from the manufacturer. According to Sherrow and Marzilli (2010), manufacturers are liable for damages for the manufacture of sale of defective products where the injury was foreseeable. Hence, in this case, before liability on the part of the hotel can lie, it must be proved that any reasonable person in the manufacturer’s circumstance would foresee the product being defective. Also, Moore and Viscusi (2004) state that sometimes, strict liability may be applied in such cases on public policy grounds.
References
Carmen Elena Prophet v International Lifestyles, Inc. et al. 11-12046 (11th Cir. 2011)
Horsey, K., & Rackley, E. (2015). Kidner’s casebook on torts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larson v. St. Francis Hotel (83 Cal. App. 2d 210, 188 P.2d 513, 1948 Cal. App)
Moore, M.J., & Viscusi, W.K. (2004). Product liability entering the twenty-first century: The US perspective. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Pakamanis, M. (2015). The interaction between the doctrines of forum nonconveniens, judgment enforcement, and the concept of the rule of law in transnational litigation in the United States. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 1(2), 106-112.
Sherrow, V., & Marzilli, A. (2010). Product liability. New York: Infobase/Chelsea House Publishing.
Steele, J. (2010). Tort Law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford: New York: Oxford University Press.
