Slip and Slide Bride Case-2
SLIP AND SLIDE BRIDE
Facts of the case:
In the early morning hours of April 7, 2013, between 12:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m., various wedding guests poured water and soap on the dance floor, and proceeded to continue to use the dance floor to dance, slip and slide on the wet, soaped and slippery surface.
During that time, prior to Plaintiff’s fall, the wedding guests used the wet, soaped and slippery dance floor to dance, slip and slide on its surface on their backsides, sideways and on their front sides.
Plaintiff’s husband, while wearing his tuxedo, also used the wet, soaped and slippery dance floor to dance, slip and slide on its surface.
By his own admission, Plaintiff Kevin Warner did not believe the dancing, slipping and sliding on the wet and soaped dance floor to be a dangerous activity.
The employees of the Hotel never received any written instructions or directives on how to deal with unruly, rowdy or drunk guests The Hotel did not have security video cameras and had no written Rules of Conduct for its guests.
There was an open bar at the wedding party, and it was apparent to the Hotel and its employees, that alcohol consumption was high among the wedding guests. The Hotel does not enter into written contracts with wedding planners nor does it have any written guidelines on how weddings should be organized and conducted at the Hotel.
Before her fall, Plaintiff danced with others on the dance floor, and it was not wet.
At one point during the evening, Plaintiff left the dance floor to put on her bathing suit, as she wanted to join other guests that were going to the pool. Before leaving the dance floor to put on her bathing suit, Plaintiff did not see anyone throwing water or soap on the dance floor.
When she returned to the dance floor after putting her bathing suit on, as she stepped onto it, Plaintiff slipped and fell, as it was wet by that time.
Plaintiff was wearing flat rubber-soled shoes when she fell.
According to the Hotel Manager, if she saw a guest engaged in a dangerous activity she would tell the guest it was a "dangerous situation", but would never order them to stop because in her opinion, she is "nobody to stop somebody doing whatever they want." If she witnessed a guest engaged in dangerous activities, she would not call the hotel guard to stop it, as the guard was merely a hotel employee, and she could only call "the cops."
On the night of the incident, the Hotel Manager saw hotel guests get the dance floor wet and soaped, slipping and sliding on it and "throwing themselves on the ground and doing all sorts of crazy things." She approached the groom and told him that the dance floor should not get wet and that what they were doing was not "appropriate", but she didn't demand that it be stopped.
A guard was present at the entrance to the Hotel on the night of April 6, but was never called. According to the Hotel's Manager the guard was on duty that night to keep the public out.
The Hotel Manager observed the bride jumping four steps down from the pool area to the wet dance floor, to then slide on it, which she described as something done in "water parks." Another manager on duty at the Hotel that night believed that running, slipping and sliding on a wet and soaped dance floor, was not necessarily dangerous, as he would have done it himself, if he had been a guest that night
The second most senior Hotel employee on duty that night, a Restaurant Manager, observed the wedding guests wetting the dance floor and sliding on it. He made no attempt to stop them from doing that as he considered them "mean and rude” and instead took a video for the Hotel's protection, because the floor could get ruined if it got wet.
Not all guests were slipping and sliding, as there were parents, relatives and older people at the wedding.
According to the wedding planner, planning to avoid drunken guests creating situations, may involve simply putting the lights on, or ending the party, and that security guards are usually available to restrain drunken guests.
As a result of her fall, Plaintiff felt the "crack" of a broken wrist when she fell, i.e. a "distal radial fracture just below" her wrist.
Plaintiff’s husband received no physical injuries as a result of defendant's negligence, but has pleaded having suffered mental pain and anguish resulting from seeing his wife's injury, and the resulting pain and discomfort she suffered. He also claims damages from loss of consortium