The owner of a hotel is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons; but he is bound to exercise such watchfulness and care as would reasonably secure their safety while guests in the hotel. Destruction of a hotel may not be anticipated, but it is generally a possibility. One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural and probable consequences resulting from his carelessness.
The plaintiff’s husband died in a hotel fire trying to rescue guests. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit and was awarded damages.
Is the hotel liable to the plaintiff under the doctrine of negligence?
The court found that the hotel left a television that was known to be defective in a room, placing the hotel guests in danger. The deceased did not act rashly or unreasonably as to impart liability under the recuse doctrine. Further, the hotel is responsible for the actions of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior.