Liability: No Breach Of Duty Where Hotel Guests Suffered Life-Changing Injuries Following Attack

The High Court has confirmed that hotels owe guests a duty to take reasonable care to protect them against injury caused by the criminal acts of third parties.

However in this particular case - where guests were catastrophically injured in a hammer attack - it was held that whilst the criminal act itself had been reasonably foreseeable, the likelihood of the attack occurring was extremely low. Therefore, the hotel had not breached its duty of care to the Claimants.

Background

The Claimants were guests at the Cumberland Hotel ("the Hotel") in London, and were staying in adjoining rooms. Three of the Claimants (all young children) were attacked in their rooms. The attacker, Philip Spence, had entered the hotel from the street with the intention to steal items from the hotel. The room in question was accessible from the hotel corridor, as the door had been left on the latch by the Claimants.

The children sustained life changing injuries and their relatives suffered alleged psychiatric injuries. They all submitted a claim against the Hotel alleging that it had breached its duty "to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case was reasonable to see that their person and property were kept reasonably safe, whilst they were staying at the hotel".

The Claimants argued that the security at the hotel was inadequate, describing it as "haphazard and poorly managed," as the assailant had not been challenged by security.

They argued that the lack of appropriate security measures in the lobby meant "in effect [the Claimants'] bedroom doors were open to the street below". The Claimants also submitted that there should have been CCTV covering the corridors and guests should have been warned to close their doors.

The Hotel accepted that it owed its guests a duty of care but denied that the duty extended to include a responsibility to protect guests from criminal acts of third parties.

Outcome

The Court found there was no liability on the part of the Hotel for the attack carried out by Mr Spence.

Mr Justice Dingeman set out his rationale as follows:

The Hotel did owe a duty to take reasonable care to protect guests at the hotel against injury caused by the criminal acts of third parties; The attack by Mr Spence was a criminal act but did not amount to an intervening act breaking the chain of causation The attack was reasonably foreseeable but the likelihood of it occurring was low The Hotel did not act in breach of any duty to the Claimants In...