The Case of Al-najar V Cumberland Hotel

Introduction

Hotels are held liable whenever hotel guests in their properties get injuries or lose their properties. Usually, innkeepers are under the obligation to protect any of their guests from any sorts of injuries at the hands of third parties whether fellow guests or strangers (Hamblen, 2019).

In the case of Al-Najar v Cumberland hotel, the judge established that while there existed a duty of care, there existed no breach. The hotel fulfilled its duties to the guests through the performance of certain activities like the consistent monitoring of guest activities by a CCTV camera. Mr. Spence had gone to room 7007 and 7008 and started stealing jewellery and money putting them into the suitcase that was owned by Fatima. While Mr. Spence was going about his business, Khaloud woke up and Spence resorted to attacking her and hit her with a hammer on the head. Fatima heard the fracas and came to try to help Khaloud but was also hit. While at it, Spence also hit Ohoud on the head with the same hammer. The three, Ohoud, Fatima and Khaloud having been hit suffered some very serious injuries. The attack left Ohoud with a catastrophic damage on her brain which derived her capacities of going about with her daily personal businesses. Mr. Spence, after attacking the three left the hammer on a staircase used for fire escape. If you need a criminology dissertation help, we are here to help.

Duty of Care

In the determination of whether duties of care arise from hotels to their guests against third parties criminal activities, the old approach used has involved a test that has three stages. First a determination is done on whether the damage was foreseeable which is then followed by a determination of whether there existed sufficient proximate relations between the parties (Johnson, 2018). The final stage involves determining whether imposing a duty of care would be just, reasonable and fair. With no doubt, hotels owe their guests a duty of care with regard to their safety. However, the scope of the duty covers those undertaking where complete control is exercised by the hotel. For instance, standards of food safety, slipping on wet floors and other internal risks like fires. The court extended the duty of care of hotels in the case of Al-Najar v Cumberland Hotel to take reasonable care to ensure the protection of guests in hotels against injuries that could be inflicted on them by third parties. That includes the omissions to take steps that would see the prevention of attacks. What that implies is that, for the duty to bite, there has to be a likelihood that particular risks would happen.

The duty of care in this case comes about from the failure in taking preventative steps that would have seen the attack avoided. This imposition of a duty of care is in line with the decisions that were made in the case of Chordas and Everett v Komojo (CLYDE & CO, 2019). The existence of duty is by reason of the responsibility tests assumptions that were set out in the Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018) case and not the use of the caparo test. While the Hotel Proprietors Act does not carry any duties for the protection of guests by hoteliers in Al-Najar v Cumberland hotel, the duty that was owed was to take reasonable care that would ensure the protection of guests against injuries brought about by third parties` criminal acts. It is quite clear that the Hotel Proprietors Act imposes duties that are stricter for the protection of the guest’s personal belongings than the duties of the guest’s protection.

During the reading of the judgment, Judge Dingemans said that the hotel had assumed responsibility for the guests from the Al-Najar family when they invited them to stay in their hotel. As such, the hotel owed them a duty to take care that is reasonable that would ensure their protection against injuries brought about by the activities of third parties. As such, it is not possible to regard a criminal act as breaking the casual chain (CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF, 2019). It is clearly foreseeable and quite reasonably to any hotel set up that there is a possibility of being invaded by a third party who then goes ahead and goes ahead and hurts guests through criminal assaults. As such, guests are owed a duty of care by hotels they are booked in.

Implications for the University of Sussex

The University of Sussex, in admitting students to take up their courses, owes the students a duty of care. The institution should do everything within its means to ensure the safety of the students and their wellbeing together with the safety of their properties. The university owes its students the following duties that would ensure their safety;

Keeping the institutions premises and grounds in safe conditions for the students.

Making swift repairs and also providing the students with information of conditions that are possibly unsafe until such a point when the repairs are completed.

Making sure there is adequate security as required.

Giving adequate consideration to issues of health and sanitation. That should include infestations by insects like bed bugs.

Conclusion

While the case of Al-Najar v Cumberland would have been the first where a court pointed out to there being a duty of care owed to guests by hotels to take care that is reasonable that would see them receive protection against injuries brought about by third parties` criminal activities. The lengths hotels would need to go to satisfy these duties is the trickiest bit. A breach of the duty of the duty of care would be established if the hotel is found to have been negligent if they knew of the existence of hazards and dangers upon inspection and failed take corrective actions and also to warn the guests (Trevelyan, 2019). The failure to provide adequate locks would be one sure indication of the hotel`s negligence.

Looking for further insights on Succession and Trusts? Click here.

Cases

Al Najar and others v The Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2019]

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4

References

CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF. (2019). PROVING THINGS 155: WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT GOES WRONG: HOTEL PROPRIETOR NOT LIABLE TO GUEST FOR ASSAULT BY TRESPASSER. [online] Available at: https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2019/06/23/proving-things-155-witness-evidence-that-goes-wrong-hotel-proprietor-not-liable-to-guest-for-assault-by-trespasser/ [Accessed 9 Dec. 2019].

CLYDE & CO. (2019). Liability: No breach of duty where hotel guests suffered life-changing injuries following attack. [online] Available at: https://www.clydeco.com/blog/insurance-hub/article/liability-no-breach-of-duty-cumberland-hotel-al-najar-guests [Accessed 9 Dec. 2019].

Hamblen, K. (2019). When is a Hotel Liable to its Guests?. [online] Legal Match. Available at: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/hotel-liability.html [Accessed 9 Dec. 2019].

Johnson, M. (2018). Common law duty of care. [online] The Law Society Gazette. Available at: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/common-law-duty-of-care/5064900.article [Accessed 9 Dec. 2019].

Trevelyan, L. (2019). The duty of care in negligence as a concept. [online] iN BRIEF. Available at: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/types-of-claim/duty-of-care-in-negligence/ [Accessed 9 Dec. 2019].