King's Negligent under Premises Liability Law - Case Study Example

I Questions Presented Was Kings negligent under premises liability law? 2. Did Nickis own behavior constitute contributory negligence? II Brief Answer 1. King’s Hospital has authorized fast-food establishments to use the courtyard for retail purposes and, by extension, it has expressly invited customers to have lunch/dinner there. Whereas ordinarily an occupier of a premise has no duty to warn people of known or obvious hazards contained therein, it is obliged to do so when it promotes a premise as a recreational facility. King’s Hospital had missed to draw up an explicit policy on managing the space outside the food service establishments, namely it had placed no warning signs next to trash bins and other potentially hazardous arrangements, nor had a sufficient number of custodians to clean up the space. Nonetheless, a postulate in favor of King’s is that the obviousness of a risk substitutes for the obligation to warn. The lack of prior on-site accidents over a two-year timespan evidences that all risks were avoidable. Besides, the degree of Nicki’s own negligence outweighs that of King’s. Therefore although King’s may have underperformed in its duty of care, there are no sufficient grounds to rule it negligent. The answer is no. 2. Nicki had slept little the night before, was stressed out for professional and personal reasons and was busy talking over the phone while on the move in the ground floor at King’s Hospital. This set of distracting factors made her as absent-minded as to overlook obstacles that a reasonable and prudent person in her position would have noticed. In view of the available set of premise liability rulings, Nicki is likely to be found contributorily negligent and her damages cut in proportion to her own negligence. If rendered the primary and active cause of the accident, she would not be entitled to any damages whatsoever. Therefore, the answer is yes. III Statement of facts Nicki Yu, a brilliant and ambitious MBA hopeful, has been several weeks into her internship at the Town Bank of Oahu. She earned recognition with long hours of dedicated work yet this went at the expense of her relationship with David, her fiancé. The night before the accident, he had accused her of sacrificing their relationship for her career. Though she denied it, she left the tumultuous dinner to work early into the next day. With just four hours of sleep, she was back to work with her mind made up to make amends to David with a card and tickets for a concert. The same day it emerged that the Town Bank of Oahu faced a hostile takeover bid from a rival. Having underslept, with professional and personal concerns in mind, she stepped out during lunchtime to buy a card for David at Kings Hospital across the street. She had her cell phone and palm pilot in hand. She entered the ground floor of King’s Hospital, for two years now redesigned into 10 000 square feet of retail space housing fast-food and gift shops and a courtyard used by customers carrying food outside. Having bought a card, she headed to Submariner’s to buy a sandwich. While on her way, her senior manager called. Still moving, she cuddled her cell phone on the shoulder and started taking notes on her palm pilot. She was so engrossed in the exercise that she never noticed a passer-by and bumped into him. Just as engrossed, she found herself falling head first on the ground. She had stumbled upon an orange tray she only noticed after fall down. It must have been one of a stack lined up on top of a trash bin outside Submariner’s. While initially she felt pain in her wrist and knee, an examination determined a fracture in her wrist. She had to undergo surgery and months of rehabilitation. Her wrist has lost much of its range of motion. Kings Hospital has a sole custodian cleaning the restrooms, floors and trash receptacles on the ground floor. He has repeatedly called on the hospitals management to hire another custodian, but to no avail. He admitted the trash receptacles were often overflowing, especially during the busy hours between 11.30 am and 1.30 pm when Nickis accident took place. The receptionist who had helped Nicki get on her feet confirmed that the day of the accident was particularly busy. IV Discussion Question 1: Was Kings negligent under premises liability law? The general rule for premises liability holds that an occupier of land or a premise is in no duty to warn of dangers that are obvious, yet can be held liable when the obvious dangers could not be readily avoided or readily overlooked. (Friedrich v. Department of Transportation, 60 Haw. 32, 586 P.2d 1037 (1978). Furthermore, when there is conflicting evidence and the court heads for a directed verdict, the plaintiff has to prove unreasonable or obvious danger. Whenever the case is referred to a jury, once it has been duly instructed into its task, the defendant must be found guilty of causing unreasonable risk of harm (Corbett v. Association of Apartment Owners of Wailua Bayview Apartments, Haw. 309, 388 P.2d 203). This case falls into the second category because testimonials of the plaintiff and witnesses are not contradictory. On the contrary, they are complementary. Therefore, a jury will have to adjudicate whether Kings Hospital posed unreasonable risk of harm to ground floor visitors. In Carreira v. Territory, supra, 40 Haw. 513, 518-519, as quoted in Young v. Price, to press a case for negligence, a plaintiff must establish: “[f]irst, a breach of duty which defendant owed to him; a negligent breach of that duty; and, third, injuries received thereby resulting proximately from that breach of duty” (Young v. Price, 47 Haw. 309, 388 P.2d 203 (1963).) In view of the above, Nicki must prove that trays on the floor and overflowing trash bins during busy hours constitutes a breach of Kings legal duty to maintain proper hygiene and that failure to do so can cause unreasonable risk of harm to customers. Next, she needs to establish that lack of proper hygiene is an act of negligence. Finally, she needs to show there is linkage between her injuries and the cluttered floor, as part of an overall negligent approach toward hygiene. 1. Was King’s Hospital in breach of duty to maintain proper hygiene and was it an act of negligence? Proper hygiene must have indeed been a problem at King’s Hospital. The only custodian at King’s Hospital has admitted during questioning that trash bins outside fast-food establishments have often been overflowing, especially during lunchtime between 11.30 am and 1.30 pm. A stray tray lying on the floor outside Submariner’s represents yet another evidence that often rules to keep the floor clean off any obstacles to unobstructed movement, such that could pose unreasonable harm to passers-by, have regularly been neglected. By set of circumstances and the presence of a temporary obstacle, the case resembles that of Young v. Price where a hose traversed a sidewalk and was the cause for the plaintiff to trip and fall (Young v. Price, 47 Haw. 309, 388 P.2d 203 (1963). However, Nicki’s case differs from the abovementioned in that there have been no signs to warn of an impending danger for Nicki to see. Neither King’s Hospital nor Submariner’s, as a tenant, have taken due care to instruct take-away customers on how to proceed with trays once through with lunch. Since no hygiene policy has been in place, the court could rule in a manner similar to that in Young v. Price. The court of the first instance found that having created a risk, the defendant has a legal duty to exercise ordinary care in “taking such precautions as might reasonably be necessary under the attendant circumstances to prevent injuries to pedestrians using the sidewalk in a lawful and proper manner” (Young v. Price, 47 Haw. 309, 388 P.2d 203 (1963).) Similarly, in Corbett v. Association of Apartment Owners of Wailua Bayview Apartments, in which the court tried the presence of an unreasonable risk of harm to pedestrians on a paved sidewalk with a four- to five-inch difference to the adjoining lawn, a “possessor of land who knows or should have known of an unreasonable risk of harm posed in persons using the land by a condition on the land, owes a duty to the persons using the land to take reasonable steps to eliminate the unreasonable risk or to warn the users against it.” (Corbett v. Association of Apartment Owners of Wailua Bayview Apartments, 70 Haw. 415, 772 P.2d 693).) King’s Hospital could have taken precautions by hiring another custodian to help Sam, they could have placed signs, and they could have duly instructed customers carrying food outside how to proceed with left-overs. In that regard, King’s was in breach of a duty owned to visitors. Furthermore, that duty was breached in a negligent fashion, evidenced by the fact that King’s ignored the repeated calls of the custodian that the trash receptacles were often overflowing and he was not able to manage cleaning them up on his own. Facts indisputably point to the fact that the tray left on the floor was the reason for Nicki’s injury. Hence all three conditions to rule King’s negligent are in place and if the jury took only the above reasoning into consideration, it would have ruled King’s negligent. 2. Did King’s Hospital take notice of hygiene problems and did they recognize these as unreasonable risk? There are other legal conditions which could help Nicki press her case. By convention if the possessor knows or should have known of an unreasonable risk, they owe a duty to invitees to take reasonable steps to eliminate the unreasonable risk or adequately warn against it. (Corbett v. AOAO Wailua Bayview Apartments, Haw. 309, 388 P.2d 203 (1989).) As mentioned above, Kings were aware of the problem and “should have known” that garbage excess ran the potential unreasonable risk of harm. The custodian had repeatedly alerted the hospital’s administration that managing all piling trash on his own was an untenable job and he was in need of an aide. Hence they consciously failed to remedy the situation over a sufficient “length of time” to be rendered negligent. Failure to rectify a situation in time has been ruled negligent in Hascup v. City and County of Honolulu case where a female City Inspector tripped on a sidewalk hole. An inspector regularly patrolled the streets to oversee the condition of municipal roads, yet he failed to notice the hole although he should have because it had apparently formed over a period of time. The court held that the “defect existed in a sidewalk for such a length of time that by reasonable diligence in the performance of their duties, the defect ought to have been known by the proper authorities.” (Hascup v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw. App. 639, 638 P.2d 870 (1982). ) Likewise, King’s Hospital should have known about the recurrent risk that stray trays posed day in day out. King’s Hospital did not take reasonable action even after notification from Sam. 3. Did Nickis negligence outweigh King’s? Yet there are other factors to consider. The premises liability law places a duty on everyone to “exercise reasonable vigilance to discover perils which may prove to be a menace to personal safety” (Young v. Price, 47 Haw. 309, 388 P.2d 203 (1963).) In addition, “the obviousness of a risk substitutes for an express warning and satisfies this obligation,” as mentioned in Friedrich v. Department of Transportation (Friedrich v. Department of Transportation, Haw. 309, 388 P.2d 203 (1979).) Further the same case refers to the Restatement (Second) of Torts 343 A, Comment g (1965) where a possessor “may reasonably assume that members of the public will not be harmed by known or obvious dangers, which are not extreme, and which any reasonable person exercising ordinary attention, perception and intelligence could be expected to avoid.” All of the above shows that if Nicki were vigilant enough she would have noticed the tray but she did not. The girl tripped onto an obstruction that people in a swarming courtyard have all successfully bypassed. This means that even it there had been a risk, it was obvious, not extreme and avoidable. Therefore, King’s could argue they were not obliged to declare it as a potential risk as a matter of law. Conclusion: King’s Hospital could have been more diligent in organizing lunchtime cleaning works. It was aware of the trash problem and could have hired another custodian and/or advised fast-food tenants to take better care of garbage left by take-away customers. Yet while aware, King’s did not qualify the situation as a problem that could potentially run an unreasonable risk of harm; rather, as an obvious obstacle that could hardly be overlooked and, thus, easily avoided. As said in the Restatement (Second) of Torts s 343 A (1965), “[…] it takes more than this to make a condition Unreasonably dangerous. If people who are likely to encounter a condition may be expected to take perfectly good care of themselves without further precautions, then the condition is not unreasonably dangerous because the likelihood of harm is slight.” Nicki’s case falls into this category and the fact that case evidence contains no prior complaints similar to Nicki’s proves King’s will hardly be ruled negligent in this case. Question 2: Did Nicki’s own behavior constitute contributory negligence? Rules for contributory negligence: The main rule holds that a plaintiff will be found contributorily negligent if a reasonable and prudent person fails to recognize an obvious obstruction just ahead in plain sight. In Price v. Young, the woman who did not see the warning signs which were put next to the green hose traversing the sidewalk was found contributorily negligent. The court ruled that any person is bound to “exercise reasonable vigilance to discover perils which may prove to be a menace to personal safety.” The plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety; therefore, she was found guilty of contributory negligence (Young v. Price, 47 Haw. 309, 388 P.2d 203 (1963).) W.T. Wong v. Hawaiian Scenic Tours, Ltd. expands the rule by saying that if a plaintiff is found contributorily negligent, then the damages payable are reduced proportionately to the degree of his/her own negligence. This case also establishes that if the plaintiff is rendered the active and primary cause of the accident, then he is entitled to no damages (W.T. Wong v. Hawaiian Scenic Tours, Ltd. 64 Haw. 401, 642 P.2d 930 (1982).) Discussion: The circumstances of the case at hand closely resemble the ones in Young v. Price. Just like Young who, even if impeded by adverse weather conditions, did not see a hose of vivid color in plain sight, Nicki failed to see an obstruction of just as vivid a color, orange. What is more, there were a number of distracting factors, which prevented Nicki from exercising ordinary care for her own personal safety. The girl was talking over the phone and was scratching notes on her palm pilot, all while on the move toward Submariner’s. This means that the girl was focused entirely on hearing the instructions of her senior manager and putting them pen to paper, meaning that moment she was watching only her palm pilot. Another proof of her inattentiveness to the immediate surroundings is that prior to the accident she bumped into someone who was walking straight ahead of her and dropped David’s card. As was mentioned in the case description, there were a set of other disturbing factors which would cut off the concentration of an otherwise normally vigilant person. Nicki had a fight with her fiancé the night before, had slept for four hours and had the distressing news about the potential hostile takeover bid for an institution that she hoped would be her full-time employer in future. Besides, the girl had confided with a fellow intern that she was extremely tired and could not focus well that morning. Yet another distracting factor might be of physical nature. It was pointed out that the day was hot and that the temperature difference between the office/hospital interiors and the street fogged up her glasses. While she wiped them dry on entry to Kings Hospital, she never did that on re-entry when she remembered she had missed to buy herself a sandwich. Hence her glasses might have impaired her normal vision, although she never expressly complained about that. The set of abovementioned circumstances show that the girl was not as vigilant that day. She did not detect an obstruction in plain sight that many others in a swarmed with people environment saw. Hence even if King’s Hospital exercised little care to keep the trash receptacles from overflowing and Submariner’s was not as prompt in taking the trays of customers carrying food outside for cleaning, Nickis behavior augmented the risk incurred by poor hygiene thereof. Besides, just like in the Young v. Price or Hascup v. The City and County of Honolulu, Nicki noticed the tray that she tripped over only after she had already fallen. Given Nicki’s emotional and physical condition, it is likely that the court will wish to establish who the primary and active cause in this accident is. Similarly to the W.T. Wong v. Hawaiian Scenic Tours, Ltd. case, Nicki will have to prove that her own share of negligence did not exceed that of King’s Hospital by not establishing clear-cut hygiene policies for busy hours. In view of the fact that no other accidents have been reported over the same matter, the degree of Nicki’s negligence might well exceed that of King’s hospital. Therefore, she might well lose her chance for recovery. Conclusion: Even if King’s Hospital had its share of negligence, Nicki is likely to be found guilty of contributory negligence, too. The girl paid little attention to her immediate surroundings and could not see obvious obstructions that a normally vigilant person would ordinarily notice and avoid. Should the court rule in her favor, she would have her damages cut proportionately to the degree of her own negligence. And if she is found the primary and active cause for the accident, Nicki might well lose the chance for damages whatsoever. V Conclusion King’s Hospital has its share of negligence for having failed to establish a policy for customers carrying food outside. It has also failed to remedy the situation despite the custodian’s repeated alerts that in the busy lunch hours he was in need of an aide. Yet this degree of negligence is to likely be outweighed by an even higher degree of negligence on Nickis part. Nicki might well be considered the primary and active cause for the accident, which would render King’s Hospital not guilty and Nicki contributorily negligent and entitled to no damages. Read More