Coates v Mulji Motor Inn, Inc and Steele v Inn of Vicksburg, Inc - Essay Example

Personal Injury Law Coates V. Mulji Motor Inn, Inc and Steele V. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc Introduction The objective of this paper is to address the rules applicable to negligence in personal injury law. Of essence, it revolves on the duties imposed by law on an innkeeper over their guests, with regards to maintaining business premises safe or secure in order to avoid injuries to the invitees. The law will apply certain principles to adjudge the culpability of the innkeeper. To begin with, to prove negligence, a plaintiff must show that the proprietor was at fault, he was in ignorance of the danger and he suffered an injury as a result. Additionally, it must be clear that the fault of the plaintiff was the proximate cause of the resulting injury. The duty of the proprietor is measured using the reasonable man’s test: that is, what a reasonable man would have done when presented with similar circumstances. The law imposes a duty on a proprietor to maintain the premises in a reasonably secure or safe condition. This means that he has a duty to offer premises that are safe and secure for use. This duty is owed to every invitee: that is, somebody who has either express or implied permission to be in the premises. Additionally, he has a duty to inspect the premises for that which was likely to cause injuries. A breach of this duty makes the proprietor liable for any resulting injury to an invitee. The basis of liability for this duty is the presumed “superior knowledge” on the part of the proprietor. The law presumes that the proprietor has better knowledge on the existence of a factor that predisposes the invitee to risks. If the invitee has as much knowledge of the hazard as the proprietor, there is no duty on the part of the proprietor to warn him and the proprietor is not liable for any resulting harm if the invitee voluntarily assumes the risk. Such knowledge extends beyond the knowledge of the physical circumstances to include the knowledge of the inherent danger that those physical circumstances pose. Therefore, the test of whether the invitee possessed equal knowledge to the proprietor goes beyond the knowledge of the existence of the physical circumstances to whether he appreciated and comprehended the dangers posed by the existence of the physical circumstances. Therefore, the proprietor is more likely to be found culpable where he has more comprehension of the quality and quantity of risks presented by a particular set of circumstances than the invitee. The proprietor is not liable for readily observable hazards that should be appreciated by the invitees. He has no duty to warn about obvious risks that the invitee should decipher from the use of reasonable senses. Additionally, in both cases the court addresses the question on the circumstances in which it shall grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury. As a general rule, the court shall try as much as possible to uphold the verdict of the jury unless, even without weighing the credibility of evidence presented, there can be only one conclusion as to the proper judgment. The question as to negligence shall be left to the jury, unless in indisputable cases. The standard of review for a motion of judgment notwithstanding the verdict requires that the court weigh the evidence in the most favorable manner to the non-moving party, giving the party all the benefit for all favorable inferences that may be made. Oates V. Mulji Motor Inn, Inc. The brief facts of this case are that a school tennis team registered to stay overnight at the appellee’s motel. At about 9pm, the team decided to go swimming at the motel’s pool. While swimming, a 17 year old Jarvis Coates drowned while swimming in the defendant’s motel pool. Coates parents commenced an action against the motel and the coach alleging that their negligence led to the death of Jarvis. At the time of the drowning, the pool did not have overhead lights, or a safety rope separating the deep from the shallow end. Although there was an underwater light at the deep end, it was not operational of the material time, and guests did not know of its existence. Additionally, there was evidence that the water was cloudy, which affected the visibility of the water. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the parents, and awarded damages to the extent of $60,000. However, the trial court awarded judgment notwithstanding verdict in favor of the motel. The appellate court however reversed this decision. It was not in dispute that as a guest, the motel owed Coates a duty of care to maintain the pool in a reasonably secure and safe manner. The motel had a duty to offer a pool that is safe and secure for swimming. The law imputes superior knowledge on the part of the motel owner, as the proprietor of the premises. The motel owner had no duty to inform Coates, or other members of the team on any obvious risks. Therefore, he had no liability as long as the conditions predisposing swimmers to risk were obvious. The particular hazards included the fact that there was no a rope to hand on incase of danger, the risk that s swimmer who got in trouble at the bottom of the pool could not be easily seen and the risk that a swimmer could not easily identify where they were. These risks were obvious. However, what was not obvious was the quantity of danger that was presented by a combination of these conditions. Superior knowledge on the part of the proprietor is deduced from the fact that he had operated the motel for over a year, he knew how to operate a pool; he knew the presence of the underwater light which was supposed to be s safety measure and was familiar with its characteristics. This is unlike Coates who was just using pool for the first time. Therefore, quality of the hazard posed by the existence of the conditions was clear to both parties equally. The duty of the motel owner is measured using the reasonable man’s test. That is, what a reasonable man would have done under similar circumstances. It is clear that the owner of the motel did not apply reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe. He failed to provide safety measures such as a rope which a swimmer in trouble could hold on to, or overhead light so that a swimmer in trouble could be easily seen. Steele V. Inn of Vicksburg In this case, Thirteen-year-old Tremayne Steele drowned and died in an accident at a pool owned by the Inn. Tremayne was staying as a guest at the inn. The Inn had a rule requiring that the pool to be kept clear. At the time of the accident, the water was cloudy affecting visibility. However, the pool management did not close down the pool for the material time because it did not consider the pool to be dangerous. A sign was posted that no life guard was on duty and, anyone swam at their own risk. Tremayne and his friends were apparently playing a game, ‘fish out of water’ where a participant cannot be tagged as long as they stayed under the water. Autopsy report indicated that the kid died from drowning. Expert witness testified that the game ‘fish out of water’ is a potentially risky game that predisposed the participants to drowning. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had breached their duty of care owed to Tremayne by failing to close down the pool or warn of the risk paused by the cloudy water. He argued that the water prevented people from seeing Tremayne under the water or realizing that he was in trouble and that resuscitation efforts failed because of that fact. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Inn. It is clear that as guest, the Inn owed Tremayne a duty of care. However, it had reasonably discharged that duty. It had posted a sign to the effect that there was no life guard on duty, and anyone used the pool at their own risk. Additionally, evidence was adduced that the Inn had installed a state of the art filtering system and a pump which operated continuously. Additionally, it had hired an expert whose duty was to maintain the chemical balance of the pool. Filtration was the only way in which the cloudiness of chemically balanced water can be eliminated. By maintaining a state of the art filtration system and keeping the water balanced chemically, the Inn had discharged its legal duty. The proprietor did not possess any superior knowledge than the guests. The cloudiness of water is a physical characteristic that is obvious to anyone. In addition, the quality of the risk paused by cloudy water is clear to all the parties. Consequently, the parties were equal in knowledge and the principle of superior knowledge does not apply. Why the Juries ruled the way they did In Coates, I am of the opinion that the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff because the defendant motel had not discharged its duty. It did not maintain the pool well, which predisposed the guests to risks. Basic safety requirements such as a rope and overhead light were not operational at the material time. The proprietor of the motel knew that both the overhead and underwater lights were supposed to be on for safe swimming. This coupled with the fact that the water was cloudy made it difficult for one to identify that a person was in trouble. In Steele, it is clear that the proprietor had done all that a reasonable man could do. He had installed a state of the art filtration machine, maintained regular inspection of the pool and chemical balancing. Unlike in Coates, the proprietor had done all that a reasonable man could do to ensure the safety of the guests using the swimming pool. Secondly, the jury in Coates must have been satisfied from the evidence that the motel proprietor possessed superior knowledge as compared to Coates. Conditions giving rise to risks were numerous: absence of safety rope, absence of light and cloudy water. In addition evidence adduced showed that motel owner had operated the motel for over a year and had learned how to operate the pool. He knew of the presence of the underwater light, and appreciated that it was security equipment. Coates, was just a guest. Consequently, it is clear that the parties were not equal in terms of the knowledge that they possessed. However, in Tremayne, the condition giving rise to risk was only the cloudiness of the water. Cloudiness is a physical fact which can be easily established and, therefore, obvious. Hence, both party had equal knowledge. Finally, I am of the opinion that the jury in Coates did consider that the deceased died as result of direct negligence of the motel. Had there been adequate lighting, somebody would have noticed that he was in trouble and gone to assist. Additionally, if a safety rope existed, the deceased would have held it to safety. In essence, breach of duty by the motel was the proximate cause of Coates’ death. Unlike in Coates, the jury in Steele possibly could not link Tremayne’s death to any breach by the defendant of their duty. This is because the proximate cause may have been failure by McKee, who was supposed to supervise Tremayne, and ensure that he did not go to the deep end. Additionally, the kids could have been responsible for engaging in a dangerous game which increased his chances of the risk materializing. What I Learnt From the two cases, I leant the duties imposed on a proprietor of a business premise: that is to ensure that the premises are safe and secure for the visitors. A proprietor is required to take reasonable steps ensure that a guest is as safe as possible while in the premises. This duty includes the duty to carry our regular inspection. I have learned what constitutes reasonable steps and how to discharge this duty to avoid legal liability. Secondly, I have learned that a proprietor is required to take reasonable steps to ensure that guests in the premises are aware not only of the existence of risky conditions, but also the quality of the risk that attaches to the conditions. Therefore, a proprietor must undertake steps to ensure that the guests appreciate the quality of the risks that arise from existing risky conditions: that is, quantity of risks and quality of the danger (Oates V. Mulji Motor Inn (1986)). In essence, at all material time, a proprietor must undertake to ensure that he is at equilibrium with guests in terms of knowledge of the risks. However, the proprietor is not obliged to inform the guests of risks which are obvious and which any reasonable man can easily decipher. This duty is owed to each and every invitee: that is, every person who has explicit or implied permission to be there. Every guest is presumed to have authority to be in premises of a hotel, because it is a commercial undertaking. In conclusion, I have learned how to protect my organization from liability. References Coates v. Mulji Inn, Inc., 342 S.E.2d 488 (Ga.App. 1986) Steele v. Vicksburg, Inc., 697 So.2d 373, 376 (Miss.l997) Read More