HONOLULU (Legal Newsline) - The Fairmont Kea Lani Resort isn’t liable for the injuries of a hotel guest who says he went to a beach several miles away at an employee’s recommendation only to become paralyzed in the surf, a Hawaii appeals court ruled.
While there are examples of hotels being held responsible for the injuries of patrons at nearby beaches, Vaughn Stephens was injured at Makena State Park’s Big Beach, a state-owned recreational facility more than three miles away. Calling it an “illogical leap” to expose the Fairmont to liability for accidents occurring far from its premises, Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals, in a March 31 decision, upheld the dismissal of the case.
In August 2012, Stephens claims he asked an unidentified Fairmont employee for advice on a “good beach to go to as a family.” The worker suggested Big Beach and gave him directions on how to get there, Stephens said. The surf conditions were dangerous that day, with a strong shore break, and lifeguards posted numerous written warnings as well as urging people to stay out of the surf repeatedly over the public address system. The last warning of the day was at 3:18 p.m.
About a half an hour later, Stephens was wading in through the surf when a breaking wave drove him into the bottom, breaking his neck and leaving him permanently paralyzed. Stephens claims he never saw or heard any of the warnings. He sued the Fairmont for negligently recommending the beach, along with claims against multiple John Does, several non-profit organizations and multiple government agencies.
After what the appeals court described as “extensive discovery,” Fairmont and Stephens moved for summary judgment. Fairmont argued it had no duty to warn Stephens about the shore break at a beach miles away from the hotel that wasn’t affiliated with the Fairmont in any way. Stephens argued innkeepers have an “enhanced duty” to warn guest about foreseeable dangers wherever they are and even if it didn’t have that duty, the hotel, through the actions of the unidentified employee, negligently recommended the beach to Stephens.
The trial court ruled for Fairmont. Hawaii law specifically states that parks must warn beachgoers about shore breaks and those warnings are legally sufficient.
On appeal, Stephens supplied unverified personal opinions of Fairmont employees about Big Beach and its shore break, but the court ruled them inadmissible evidence. The court also rejected comparison to a Ninth Circuit opinion allowing a hotel to be sued for failing to adequately warn about conditions at the beach abutting its property, saying that wasn’t applicable to a beach miles away from the Fairmont. Likewise a federal court decision, deciding a matter of Hawaii law, found a hotel potentially liable for injuries at a beach across the road but only because it was “in or about the hotel's premises,” and the hotel had advertised the fact it “overlooked the golden sands” of the beach.
“Stephens points to no evidence that shows Big Beach was somehow `in or about the hotel's premises,’” the appeals court said.
In contrast, the appeals court cited another opinion letting a hotel off the hook for someone who was injured jumping off a seawall that the company owned but couldn’t control because of a public easement.
The appeals court also rejected an argument the Fairmont fell afoul of the good Samaritan doctrine, under which someone who offers advice to protect another person can be liable if that advice leads to an injury. “An unidentified employee's response to Stephens's inquiry about a good beach does not constitute an undertaking to render a protective service,” the court said.