A property owner has a duty to use reasonable care to ensure the safety of guests

In the recent Minnesota Court of Appeals unpublished case of Pape v. Macks, LLC, 2011 WL 1466433 (Minn. Ct. App. April 19, 2011), the Court of Appeals reviewed whether a hotel owner is negligent for an injury to a guest.  In this case the guest was taking a shower when he slid the shower door, it cracked and the entire pane fell onto his foot.  The hotel owner indicated that its staff conducted routine checks of rooms after guest checkout and no defects or problems were noticed.  Further, the guest indicated that he had taken previous showers without noticing any defect.  The guest brought an action against the hotel owner for, among other things, negligence.  Although summary judgment is seldom granted on negligence issues, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the hotel owner.  The guest appealed.  The Court of Appeals found that in this instance the hotel owner was not negligent.

There are four elements to a negligence cause of action:

1.                  The existence of a duty of care;

2.                  a breach of that duty;

3.                  an injury; and

4.                  the breach of the duty is the proximate cause of the injury.

Id. (citations omitted).

Landowners have a duty to use reasonable care for its guest’s safety.  This duty includes an ongoing duty to inspect and maintain the property.  However, simply because an accident occurs does not mean the duty is breached.  The Court of Appeals stated:

If a reasonable inspection does not reveal a dangerous condition, such that the landowner has neither actual nor constructive knowledge of it, under the theory of negligence the landowner is not liable for any physical injury caused to invited entrants by the dangerous condition.

Id. (citations omitted). 

The guest (plaintiff) had the burden of proof in this case.  He had to show evidence, either by an expert or other testimony, that inspections would have revealed a defect.  The undisputed facts are that the hotel owner did conduct routine inspections, the inspections did not reveal any defects or problems, and the guest used the shower previously and did not observe any defects or problems.  The guest only attempted to refute these facts with conclusory statements about the inadequacy of the hotel owner’s inspections.  He needed to come forward with actual evidence and facts that an inspection of the doors would have revealed the alleged defect, e.g., expert testimony or other evidence.  At a minimum, to survive summary judgment, the guest needs to submit circumstantial evidence showing an inference that the hotel owner had constructive notice of the alleged defect.  “Constructive notice”, as opposed to actual notice, means that the hotel owner should have known of the defect or problem.

Because the guest failed to demonstrate an issue that could be tried regarding whether a reasonable inspection would have revealed a discoverable defect, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court.

This unpublished opinion holds that a property owner can be liable to a guest or invitee if there is evidence that a reasonable inspection would have revealed the defect or danger.