Lady dies after falling while sliding down a bannister; family wants to sue the hotel

Tombi!

http://www.suntimes.com/13988360-761/family-of-girl-killed-sliding-down-banister-sue-palmer-house-event-hosts.html

The parents of a woman who died at the “Haunted Hotel Ball” at the Palmer House Hilton in 2010 are suing the hotel and the event hosts.

James and Deborah Duskey claim the death of their daughter Megan at the Halloween-themed ball was due to the negligence of the hotel and the event companies who hosted the party in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court.

The suit names Hilton Worldwide, the Palmer House Hilton, Surreal Chicago and Adrenaline Y2K as the hosts of the party.

Megan Duskey fell four floors to her death after she tried to slide down a railing on the Palmer House Hilton, at 17 E. Monroe St., on October 30, 2010.

The suit claims the hotel and event hosts allowed people at the ball to “consume unlimited amounts of alcoholic beverages” after they paid for a ticket and failed to provide security to protect the patrons of the ball.

Duskey, 23, was an elementary school teacher at Orville T. Bright Elementary School on the far South Side. She was dressed as comic book superhero the Silver Spectre when she died, authorities said at the time.

The Cook County Medical Examiner’s office said Duskey was dead at the scene, and they ruled her death an accident.

The ten-count suit seeks more than $500,000 in compensation for Duskey’s wrongful death.

Brian Pfeiffer, CEO of Surreal Chicago, one of the event hosts, declined to comment on the suit because Duskey’s death occurred in the lobby of the hotel and did not happen while she was at the party.

Efforts to reach Hilton Worldwide and Adrenaline Y2K were unsuccessful Tuesday night.

I feel that the woman was at fault. I could understand if she died of alcohol poisining as a result of consuming too much at the party but how would the hotel be responsible for someone deciding to slide down a bannister.

The family make it seem like the woman and the rest of her party should have been treated like children.

MagicMarker

And the Darwin Award goes to....

DEFTLEFTHAND

Family will do well to get anything. It's a clear case of contributory negligence.

Helix

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Family will do well to get anything. It's a clear case of contributory negligence.

i hope they get absolutely hammered for legal costs tbh

Daroxtar

So she got drunk and fell off a bannister while acting the bollix and died as a result......and the family want to sue the hotel?
The hotel should countersue the family for damage to the floor

Skerries

I think they mean Silk Spectre as Silver Spectre throws up some interesting pictures

Tombi!

Daroxtar wrote: »

So she got drunk and fell off a bannister while acting the bollix and died as a result......and the family want to sue the hotel?
The hotel should countersue the family for damage to the floor

The thing is, from what I understand the family think it's the hotel's fault for letting them get that drunk.

So in essence they think their 23 year old daughter should be treated like a small child.

humbert

I guess you'd have to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume grief has caused ordinarily decent people to go looking for someone else to blame.

Of course the organisers aren't at fault.

Riddle101

I hate these types of people. People who will sue and take advantage of the system, in order to get some money . It's just like that story I read about the guy who was injured in the Denver shooting, and is now suing the cinema for having emergency exits at the back of the cinema. As well as the studio that produced the Dark Knight Rises for the trauma he endured during the whole event.

ComfyKnickers

This woman was 23 and a teacher so she's was mature and had a brain.

Pity the same can't be said for her parents!! :mad:

crazygeryy

jeez i thought this thread was about a 4 year old when i read it first.
screw them.shes 23 she should know better,or she should have.............

boomkatalog

Why don't they sue the alcohol companies? Or her friends, for not catching her? Or the dress makers, who made the dress out of such slippery material? Or the writers of the Simpsons, for making sliding down a banister seem cool? :rolleyes:

Carbon Bootprint

I agree, the title "Girl falls..." is misleading. She was an adult and no longer under the control of her parents. She gets sloshed and falls to her death, that's tragic. She seems to have acted of her own accord, though, so I see no reason for the parents to profit. Other than typical greed, of course.

humbert

ComfyKnickers wrote: »

This woman was 23 and a teacher so she's was mature and had a brain.

I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion on both counts.

3ndahalfof6

it was not the fall that killed her it was the sudden stop, if she was served to much liquor they might be in a pickle, they don't like that sort of thing over there.

IvySlayer

People trying to profit from death make me sick.

phasers

Morons try to profit from death of another moron.

Knex*

She was dressed as comic book superhero the Silver Spectre when she died, authorities said at the time.

And this is relevant how?

My name is URL

Who gives a shite? Obviously it was her own fault, but does it really deserve a thread? An American family suing a hotel... big fcuking woop

I could understand the need for a thread full of endless vitriol if the family had actually been successful with such a claim, but a story about how they intend to sue is pointless.

Apple are suing Samsung for $2.5 billion over a patent dispute. There's something worth talking or being annoyed about... not a couple of dopes chancing their arm after losing a daughter.

Tombi!

Knex. wrote: »

And this is relevant how?

I think the costume could have been slippery or something.

Maybe they want to sue DC comics and the costume store?

WumBuster

Its a sad story but i dont see what grounds the family have for suing.

Feckin disgraceful. No doubt they will win.

I fell in a hotel recently, fell onto glass and cut my knee up pretty badly. I had to fill out an incident form and the guys on reception were telling me that the previous year a woman had fallen after swinging from the light fittings, and sued, she got €35,000 :rolleyes:

3ndahalfof6

Deleted User wrote: »

Feckin disgraceful. No doubt they will win.

I fell in a hotel recently, fell onto glass and cut my knee up pretty badly. I had to fill out an incident form and the guys on reception were telling me that the previous year a woman had fallen after swinging from the light fittings, and sued, she got €35,000 :rolleyes:

How much do you think you will get.

NIMAN

" We have lost our beautiful daughter, we are heartbroken. But give us some money and we will learn to live with the loss".

Sometimes I despair for the human race. Problem is, the legal system and courts made the mistakes years ago of paying out on stupid claims, and now people will claim for anything. If they had nipped it in the bud many decades ago, we wouldn't have any of this.

mackg

Deleted User wrote: »

Feckin disgraceful. No doubt they will win.

I fell in a hotel recently, fell onto glass and cut my knee up pretty badly. I had to fill out an incident form and the guys on reception were telling me that the previous year a woman had fallen after swinging from the light fittings, and sued, she got €35,000 :rolleyes:

I was going to reply after the first line saying not a hope, then I read the second part.:(

RobbingBandit

As a great man once said, "To Alcohol the cause of and solution to all of life's problems."

jumpguy

Really, I think a lot of these idiotic suits are partially out of grief as well as greed - trying to find blame for something, anything else besides the deceased. Nobody just throws away this money on legal costs, and I can think of a few tragic instances where people sell off massive amounts of their wealth to pursue a case they wish existed.

McCrack

You see litigation keeps people on their toes, the threat of it keeps occupiers (such as this hotel) vigilant to make sure their premises are safe for their guests and their systems in place (such as policies & security) are also responsible as can be to protect silly humans from accidentally injuring or worse killing themselves.

without knowing the full facts and circumstances of this accident I can't comment except to say its more likely than not that the hotel failed in its duty of care to this drunk lady hence the civil action by the next of kin.

V_Moth

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

it was not the fall that killed her it was the sudden stop, if she was served to much liquor they might be in a pickle, they don't like that sort of thing over there.

"A regrettable air-ground interface."

wyndhurst

In the US, most States have clear laws (known as Dram Shop laws) that govern the sale of alcohol in bars. The establishment clearly broke the law and did not maintain their responsibility towards the safety of their patron by serving her alcohol when already intoxicated.

I know I will get slated for this....but, we in Ireland have a perverse view of alcohol consumption that colours even our view of this tragic case.

Chuck Stone

The hotel should counter-sue gravity.

shampoosuicide

finding it difficult to visualise a four-floor drop from a bannister. then again i haven't been in many hotels

Adyx

wyndhurst wrote: »

In the US, most States have clear laws (known as Dram Shop laws) that govern the sale of alcohol in bars. The establishment clearly broke the law and did not maintain their responsibility towards the safety of their patron by serving her alcohol when already intoxicated.

I know I will get slated for this....but, we in Ireland have a perverse view of alcohol consumption that colours even our view of this tragic case.

I'll start with slating if that's okay? The hotel did not clearly break the law - nowhere in that report does it say she was served whilst already intoxicated or anyone else for that matter. If they did clearly break the law, why is no one being charged over the matter? A lawsuit is a civil matter not criminal. Finally maybe you have a perverse view of alcohol, please don't presume to speak for me. I can take responsibility for my own actions whether I've consumed alcohol or not.

shampoosuicide

wyndhurst wrote: »

In the US, most States have clear laws (known as Dram Shop laws) that govern the sale of alcohol in bars. The establishment clearly broke the law and did not maintain their responsibility towards the safety of their patron by serving her alcohol when already intoxicated.

I know I will get slated for this....but, we in Ireland have a perverse view of alcohol consumption that colours even our view of this tragic case.

police said that alcohol wasn't a factor, also she had reportedly only been in the hotel for half an hour when the accident happened.

wyndhurst

Adyx wrote: »

I'll start with slating if that's okay? The hotel did not clearly break the law - nowhere in that report does it say she was served whilst already intoxicated or anyone else for that matter. If they did clearly break the law, why is no one being charged over the matter? A lawsuit is a civil matter not criminal. Finally maybe you have a perverse view of alcohol, please don't presume to speak for me. I can take responsibility for my own actions whether I've consumed alcohol or not.

Your having a laugh right?
Nobody from Waterford takes responsibility for their own actions...that why its such a **** hole :P

cooperguy

wyndhurst wrote: »

In the US, most States have clear laws (known as Dram Shop laws) that govern the sale of alcohol in bars. The establishment clearly broke the law and did not maintain their responsibility towards the safety of their patron by serving her alcohol when already intoxicated.

I know I will get slated for this....but, we in Ireland have a perverse view of alcohol consumption that colours even our view of this tragic case.

If you choose to drink too much and then choose to do something stupid then its your fault and your responsibility not anybody elses. Nothing to do with the "coloured" view Irish have of alcohol

Happyman42

A quick google of the 'less sensationalist' press will tell you that
1. Alcohol was not a factor in her death according to both the medical examiner and the Police.
2. There is an issue with the safety of the stairs. Party goers where not warned of their dangerous condition.

Where it my daughter I would want answers and somebody to pay for a needless death.

nervous_twitch

Happyman42 wrote: »

A quick google of the 'less sensationalist' press will tell you that
1. Alcohol was not a factor in her death according to both the medical examiner and the Police.
2. There is an issue with the safety of the stairs. Party goers where not warned of their dangerous condition.

Where it my daughter I would want answers and somebody to pay for a needless death.

Bullsh*t. If your daughter was flying down the bannister of a dangerous staircase, then it's entirely her fault. Jesus, I can't believe it's come down to this; no-one is responsible for looking after you, or protecting your life, especially as an adult. Some common cop on and you'd be OK.

homerjay2005

the sad thing is that they will probably win

Happyman42

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Bullsh*t. If your daughter was flying down the bannister of a dangerous staircase, then it's entirely her fault. Jesus, I can't believe it's come down to this; no-one is responsible for looking after you, or protecting your life, especially as an adult. Some common cop on and you'd be OK.

So she was 'flying' down it now? :rolleyes:
She paid the ultimate price for doing something that is usually trivial and most people have done similarly trivial things. The court case is to find out if the hotel where negligent and if the stairs was dangerous, if they weren't, so be it. If they where and it was dangerous, then that is what insurance is for...to compensate those affected by the negilgence.

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

So she was 'flying' down it now? :rolleyes:
She paid the ultimate price for doing something that is usually trivial and most people have done similarly trivial things. The court case is to find out if the hotel where negligent and if the stairs was dangerous, if they weren't, so be it. If they where and it was dangerous, then that is what insurance is for...to compensate those affected by the negilgence.

You walk up and down stairs.
You do not slide down a banister.

Yes, worst case scenario but the hotel was never at fault.

Now if the girl was walking on the stairs and slipped, sure, that's different.

But to be stupid enough to slide down a bannister that is 4 stories above ground level, drunk or not is a very stupid thing to do.

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

But to be stupid enough to slide down a bannister that is 4 stories above ground level, drunk or not is a very stupid thing to do.

May well be, but the fact is, if the stairs were dangerous then the hotel is liable. Most accidents happen because of somebody doing something stupid. Stairs are designed (riser heights, tread depths, landings, bannisters, even the widths between railings, have to be within certain tolerances etc) and covered by building regulations to cover many scenarios. If for instance the bannister gave way because it wasn't properly installed or maintained, then the hotel take the blame and rightly so. In fact, I thought that it should have been impossible to fall that distance down a stairwell but I can't find the relevant documentation.
But that is not really the point, the point is, the accident didn't happen because she was raving drunk, it happened because the parents claim the hotel where negiglent, they have every right to prosecute that claim.

The Big Red Button

Happyman42 wrote: »

May well be, but the fact is, if the stairs were dangerous then the hotel is liable. Most accidents happen because of somebody doing something stupid. Stairs are designed (riser heights, tread depths, landings, bannisters, even the widths between railings, have to be within certain tolerances etc) and covered by building regulations to cover many scenarios. If for instance the bannister gave way because it wasn't properly installed or maintained, then the hotel take the blame and rightly so.

The bannister wouldn't have given way if she hadn't been sliding down it! They're not designed to put up with that sort of weight.

She was a grown woman, and apparently was even sober at the time ... attempting to slide down a bannister with an obvious four-floor drop was stupid and suicidal.

Happyman42 wrote: »

the point is, the accident didn't happen because she was raving drunk, it happened because the parents claim the hotel where negiglent

Well ... that's the strangest logic I've ever heard!

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

May well be, but the fact is, if the stairs were dangerous then the hotel is liable. Most accidents happen because of somebody doing something stupid. Stairs are designed (riser heights, tread depths, landings, bannisters, even the widths between railings, have to be within certain tolerances etc) and covered by building regulations to cover many scenarios. If for instance the bannister gave way because it wasn't properly installed or maintained, then the hotel take the blame and rightly so. In fact, I thought that it should have been impossible to fall that distance down a stairwell but I can't find the relevant documentation.
But that is not really the point, the point is, the accident didn't happen because she was raving drunk, it happened because the parents claim the hotel where negiglent, they have every right to prosecute that claim.

She was 23 years old. Hotels do not expect idiots to slide down the bannisters. The accident happened because she was stupid.

The hotel cannot babysit everyone that stays. It's not up to them to make sure an adult is aware of how to descend stairs like a normal person.

Tails142

What is the point of stair wells that have open centres anyway, allowing you to fall to your death?

I know they're everywhere, but don't see the point

Fr_Dougal

Thought thread title said "Lady Gaga dies".

I am disappoint.

shampoosuicide

Tails142 wrote: »

What is the point of stair wells that have open centres anyway, allowing you to fall to your death?

I know they're everywhere, but don't see the point

you could say the same thing about elevators/stairwells in shopping centres, eg stephens green. the point is that you don't expect people to be idiots

Tails142

What is the point of stair wells that have open centres anyway, allowing you to fall to your death...

As an example there is one at work that's a fire exit to the side, serves no visual or aesthetic purpose, just more dangerous

Happyman42

chatterpillar wrote: »

The bannister wouldn't have given way if she hadn't been sliding down it! They're not designed to put up with that sort of weight.

The bannisters have to be designed to take the weights, thats the point of them. The rails of a bannister have to at a precise distance, any idea why?
It's to stop the head of a child passing through them, which is NOT the normal use of a stairs but you have to allow for it happening as you have to allow for a whole raft of different scenarios when building and maintaining public spaces. You have to allow for all sorts of stupid things.

She was a grown woman, and apparently was even sober at the time ... attempting to slide down a bannister with an obvious four-floor drop was stupid and suicidal.

Yes it is. That doesn't release the hotel from their duties though.

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

She was 23 years old. Hotels do not expect idiots to slide down the bannisters. The accident happened because she was stupid.

Hotels don't expect people to hang out of windows either but they take precautions to insure windows don't open far enough to allow you to do it.

The hotel cannot babysit everyone that stays. It's not up to them to make sure an adult is aware of how to descend stairs like a normal person.

It's up to them to ensure the hotel is safe. If the bannisters gave way under the tolerances, they will be liable. The insurer will walk away if the stairs was not up to standard.

ComfyKnickers

humbert wrote: »

ComfyKnickers wrote: »

This woman was 23 and a teacher so she's was mature and had a brain.

I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion on both counts.

Ha ha ok well I'll re-phrase it so. You'd think she'd have more cop on! :-)

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Hotels don't expect people to hang out of windows either but they take precautions to insure windows don't open far enough to allow you to do it.
It's up to them to ensure the hotel is safe. If the bannisters gave way under the tolerances, they will be liable. The insurer will walk away if the stairs was not up to standard.

So you feel that the hotel should cover every "stupid" thing a person can do that could lead to their death?

Regardless of if the stairs were in horrible condition or not, sliding down them is a fault of the person and not the hotel.