Businesses have certain legal responsibilities to guests on their property, but how far those responsibilities extend is frequently litigated. A recent New York decision addressed the question of when a business assumes a duty of care to a guest in a case involving a tragic suicide. While the facts are unusual, the court’s analysis can be applied to a wide range of scenarios.

In Beadell v. Eros Management Realty LLC, the wife of a Nebraska neurologist filed suit against the owner and operator of the New York hotel where her husband was a guest when he leapt to his death. The widow alleged that both she and her sister-in-law (a mental health professional) contacted the hotel over a series of concerning communications from the deceased neurologist. They first asked the hotel to check on him. Hotel personnel went to his room, spoke to him, and observed liquor and pill bottles. However, the guest told them he was “fine” and asked not to be disturbed. The hotel personnel communicated to the widow that the guest had said he was “fine,” without mentioning their other observations.

Later, after additional alarming communications from the hotel guest, his widow and sister each separately called the hotel and asked them to call the police to initiate a 72-hour medical detention. After waiting some time, the hotel personnel called the sister back to confirm she wanted the police called. She confirmed, but the hotel waited 10 additional minutes before calling 911. The police arrived to find the man on the balcony ledge, but their attempts to talk him back into the room were unsuccessful, and he jumped to his death.

At issue in the case was whether the hotel could be held liable for the death of its guest. The widow did not allege that a hotel is generally responsible for the safety of its guests. Instead, she asserted the “assumed duty” theory, which provides that even where no duty originally exists, once it is voluntarily undertaken, it must be performed with due care.

The widow claimed the hotel assumed two duties. The first was to check on her husband, and the second was to call the police. As such, it was liable for failing to perform those duties properly.

The New York Court of Appeals refused to hold the hotel owner/operator liable. It held that it is not enough that a duty was assumed and that the duty was performed negligently. The conduct undertaken must also have placed the defendant in a more vulnerable position than he would have been if no action had been taken. This can happen where the action creates a “false sense of security.”

The widow alleged that because the hotel agreed to call the police, neither the widow nor her sister-in-law called the police on their own. However, the Court held that the widow failed to establish that the hotel should have reasonably foreseen that the family members would not call the police themselves because the hotel agreed to do so. In addition, the Court refused to hold the hotel liable on public policy grounds, because doing so would encourage hotels to adopt broad policies against assisting guests in possible danger.

While the hotel escaped liability, it incurred significant costs, as the case was litigated all the way to the highest court in New York. Businesses that are open to the public should have policies and procedures for handling emergencies involving guests on the property. These should be tailored to the type of business and the situations likely to come up to minimize legal risks.

If you need assistance crafting workplace policies or you are facing a lawsuit, contact one of our attorneys to discuss how we can help.