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

Giselle

humbert wrote: »

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.

I think this is the most likely, they're lashing out in their grief. They don't want to acknowledge it was their daughters own lack of sense that led to her death, its a part of being human and being heartbroken to see things skewed, with the deceased seen in the best possible light.

Hoping they lose every cent on legal costs, as well as their daughter is more than a bit mean-spirited tbh.

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

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.

Sliding down a bannister should not result in your death, leaning against it should not cause your death.
If the contributory factor that caused the fall was a 'not fit for pupose bannister' (and it will be examined to see what loads it could take) then they are liable.

Helix

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sliding down a bannister should not result in your death, leaning against it should not cause your death.
If the contributory factor that caused the fall was a 'not fit for pupose bannister' (and it will be examined to see what loads it could take) then they are liable.

the purpose of banisters is not to slide down them

assuming the banister didn't tear out of the fixings, and she simply fell over the thing because she was on top of it, it'd be hard to make a not fit for purpose accusation stick

Happyman42

Helix wrote: »

the purpose of banisters is not to slide down them

And the purpose of stair rails is not to stick your head through them, but they are strictly regulated to be a certain distance apart to stop that happening. The same goes for banisters, they have to be designed to take certain loads.

assuming the banister didn't tear out of the fixings, and she simply fell over the thing because she was on top of it, it'd be hard to make a not fit for purpose accusation stick

That is true. They would have no case if the stairs where within tolerances and properly maintained.

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sliding down a bannister should not result in your death, leaning against it should not cause your death.
If the contributory factor that caused the fall was a 'not fit for pupose bannister' (and it will be examined to see what loads it could take) then they are liable.

I sincerly hope you're not serious.

How can you think someone being stupid and behaving like a child is the fault of the hotel?

mikemac1

Big company = big target

This is owned by the Hilton group, if this was a small family run hotel then no lawyer would be bothered and they wouldn't even try

But they see Hilton group and it's potential $$$

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I sincerly hope you're not serious.

How can you think someone being stupid and behaving like a child is the fault of the hotel?

Her behaviour is not the fault of the hotel, nobody is saying that.
If her fall was a result of the hotels stairs not being fit for purpose then they are negligent.
If somebody atempts to set fire to the drapes, the hotel aren't responsible for that person's behaviour either but if the drapes aren't fireproof, then the hotel is liable for the burns, because the drapes should be fireproofed.
These are regulations that insure that we all are protected in public spaces.

Helix

Happyman42 wrote: »

And the purpose of stair rails is not to stick your head through them, but they are strictly regulated to be a certain distance apart to stop that happening. The same goes for banisters, they have to be designed to take certain loads.


That is true. They would have no case if the stairs where within tolerances and properly maintained.

there's nothing at all in the story to suggest the banisters were damaged. simply that the girl tried to slide down them and fell to her death

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Her behaviour is not the fault of the hotel, nobody is saying that.
If her fall was a result of the hotels stairs not being fit for purpose then they are negligent.
If somebody atempts to set fire to the drapes, the hotel aren't responsible for that person's behaviour either but if the drapes aren't fireproof, then the hotel is liable for the burns, because the drapes should be fireproofed.
These are regulations that insure that we all are protected in public spaces.

Fit for purpose does not include "idiots sliding down stairs".
The stairs shouldn't be made to hold the weight of someone that's sliding down the,.

Happyman42

Helix wrote: »

there's nothing at all in the story to suggest the banisters were damaged. simply that the girl tried to slide down them and fell to her death

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-family-of-woman-who-fell-to-her-death-at-palmer-house-halloween-party-file-suit-20120725,0,568124.story

The parents of a young woman who fell four stories to her death at the Palmer House Hilton have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit alleging the hotel and promoters of a Halloween party did not take enough security measures during the event almost two years ago.
In the suit filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court, James and Deborah Duskey alleged the hotel and Surreal Chicago and Adrenaline Y2K, the event promoters, failed to warn their daughter, Megan, of the dangerous conditions of a stairwell during the Haunted Hotel Ball on Oct. 30, 2010.
Megan Duskey, 23, fell to her death while trying to slide down a railing shortly after arriving at the event with friends, the Cook County medical examiner's office and friends said at the time. She died instantly from head trauma.
Alcohol was not a factor in the incident, according to the medical examiner and police.
According to a 2010 Chicago Tribune story, Duskey, a Chicago schoolteacher, and several girlfriends she had known most of her life had got tickets to the sold-out Haunted Hotel Ball at the Palmer House Hilton, and Duskey was going as glamorous superhero Silk Spectre from the movie "Watchmen."
The suit contended that the hotel and party promoters should have kept her from the stairwell area.

Helix

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Fit for purpose does not include "idiots sliding down stairs".
The stairs shouldn't be made to hold the weight of someone that's sliding down the,.

why are we all assuming that she broke the banisters?

Jester252

Happyman42 wrote: »

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I sincerly hope you're not serious.

How can you think someone being stupid and behaving like a child is the fault of the hotel?

Her behaviour is not the fault of the hotel, nobody is saying that.
If her fall was a result of the hotels stairs not being fit for purpose then they are negligent.
If somebody atempts to set fire to the drapes, the hotel aren't responsible for that person's behaviour either but if the drapes aren't fireproof, then the hotel is liable for the burns, because the drapes should be fireproofed.
These are regulations that insure that we all are protected in public spaces.

With that logic how long until hotels have a electrician to plug in anything in case a person sticks their finger into the socket

Helix

Happyman42 wrote: »

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-family-of-woman-who-fell-to-her-death-at-palmer-house-halloween-party-file-suit-20120725,0,568124.story

again, nothing there about the state of the banisters

that's quoting the suit, and im willing to bet it relates to the fact that they were stairs, and drunk people on stairs can be dangerous. it's the usual "how was i to know that my cup of coffee was hot when i spilled it all over myself" crap

Kirby

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Fit for purpose does not include "idiots sliding down stairs".
The stairs shouldn't be made to hold the weight of someone that's sliding down the,.

Actually they should. The purpose of a bannister is for people to keep their balance for safety. It should easily be able to cope with the weight of a person in the event that they lose their balance and fall on it.

This woman was acting the eejit and fell to her death. If that's all that happened than it's her own fault and the family have to deal with it. The hotel isn't responsible for making sure their guests don't do stupid things. There are a couple of caveats to this however.

If the bannister gave way or collapsed in some way the hotel will have to take some of the responsibility and they will likely have to pay up. The story doesn't mention this so it might not be the case. She may have just fallen.

Similarly, if they plied her with alcohol when she was already clearly drunk, they will likely be stung for a few bob too.

Happyman42

Helix wrote: »

again, nothing there about the state of the banisters

that's quoting the suit, and im willing to bet it relates to the fact that they were stairs, and drunk people on stairs can be dangerous. it's the usual "how was i to know that my cup of coffee was hot when i spilled it all over myself" crap

You are right, all we are going on is the words 'dangerous condition'.
Same logic applies though, if the stairs where dangerous then the hotel will be liable. We can all make moral and value judgements until the cows come home, but a court won't.

Helix

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are right, all we are going on is the words 'dangerous condition'.
Same logic applies though, if the stairs where dangerous then the hotel will be liable. We can all make moral and value judgements until the cows come home, but a court won't.

don't you think that the lawsuit wouldve mentioned that the banisters weren't fit for purpose though?

3ndahalfof6

is it no win no fee.

Happyman42

Helix wrote: »

don't you think that the lawsuit wouldve mentioned that the banisters weren't fit for purpose though?

The sidetrack into discussing bannisters specifcally was probably my fault.
The lawsuit cites 10 points, I can't find it online, I presime it goes into detail about what was actually dangerous about it.

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

The sidetrack into discussing bannisters specifcally was probably my fault.
The lawsuit cites 10 points, I can't find it online, I presime it goes into detail about what was actually dangerous about it.

Okay, you can take the blame :pac:

But yeah, I think the argument is that they're dangerous, rather than them being classed as dangerous by an inspector (if that makes sense).

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Okay, you can take the blame :pac:

But yeah, I think the argument is that they're dangerous, rather than them being classed as dangerous by an inspector (if that makes sense).

That is the case, the family have every right to pursue it.
I primarily came on the thread to stop the usual awfulness of people responding to sensationalist tripe. Alcohol did not contrbute to the accident.

Adyx

wyndhurst wrote: »

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

What a fantastic retort. Obviously you were right then and I tip my hat to you. Except I'm not actually from Waterford. Ah well, looks like you were wrong. Again.

I agree if the bannisters were faulty in some way and the hotel did continue to serve someone who already looked pissed, they may get somewhere with this.

McCrack

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

is it no win no fee.

No such thing.

Costs follow the event.

In other words an unsuccessful Plaintiff will always be liable for the other side's costs.

The Plaintiff may agree a no win no fee with their own lawyer but they will always be liable for the other sides legal costs.

MOH

From the original story

Duskey, 23, and her friends were there half an hour on Saturday night when she playfully attempted to slide down a banister rail and fell four stories to her death, the Cook County medical examiner's office said.

There's no mention of any fault with the banister.

Deleted User

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:

afk swinging to get paid

Wacker The Attacker

Did she at least have an orgasm?

--Kaiser--

Clearly all hotel bannisters should be electrified to prevent such a tragic (cough) accident from happening again

bbam

Isn't it different in the states regarding lettIng someone get hammered. Wasn't there an issue with barmen being liable for drunks drink driving.
I know in a bar in Texas I couldn't buy a round of 8 drinks as no one person could buy more than a certain amount of alcohol at any one time, probably a local county thing.

I agree it's a crazy situation but I do think it's viewed different there.

OldNotWIse

McCrack wrote: »

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.

Should they be on constant banister-sliding watch or something? How can they provide care for people who are obviously determined to get themselves killed? Short of locking their guests in padded rooms? No doubt some bright spark would consume the padding and choke, and the families would then sue (and win).

Happyman42

Jester252 wrote: »

With that logic how long until hotels have a electrician to plug in anything in case a person sticks their finger into the socket

Funny example because it proves the point. If you where able to simply stick your finger in the socket without impediment then the equipment would be defective under the legislation and those responsible for it to be maintained and safe would be liable for any electric shock. There is a reason that sockets are protected, they are designed for eventualities other than proper use.
If the stairs are proved to be 'dangerous' and the hotel didn't carry out their 'duty of care', then they are liable under the law. As I said, people can moralise until the cows come home, it won't alter that fact.

Rented Mule

This may sound funny, but $500K is actually a low number to be shooting for in a case like this. As a 23 years old attractive, college educated, white woman, they really should be shooting for a much higher number. All of these characteristics usually play well with a jury.

I'm going to guess that the attorneys for the four defendants will be eager to settle at such a low number.

Tomk1

Seriously you really have to see this stairway, it's a winding staircase in a ''remote'' part of the hotel. Not a hope in hell of sliding down that.


See newstory with pic of stairway
www.newsblaze.com/story/20101101092220kays.nb/topstory.html
Just the picture of the stairway
www.newsblaze.com/pix/2010/1101/pix/Megan-Duskey-staircase.230.jpg

Motley Crue

At 23 she did well to have a good job and so she was obviously some very bright with a good head on her sholders. Nobody forced that alcohol into her and nobody insisted she slide down that bannister, it's a shame she was intoxicated and it's a complete tragedy she lost her life, but that is just the way it is and her familys grief is being represented in this absurd lawsuit.

Biggins

ComfyKnickers wrote: »

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

humbert wrote: »

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

She must be the female version of Enda Kenny!

Happyman42

Motley Crue wrote: »

At 23 she did well to have a good job and so she was obviously some very bright with a good head on her sholders. Nobody forced that alcohol into her and nobody insisted she slide down that bannister, it's a shame she was intoxicated and it's a complete tragedy she lost her life, but that is just the way it is and her familys grief is being represented in this absurd lawsuit.

What bit of 'Alcohol was not a contributory factor in the accident, according to the Medical Examiner and the Police', do you not understand? :rolleyes:

Rented Mule

Tomk1 wrote: »

Seriously you really have to see this stairway, it's a winding staircase in a ''remote'' part of the hotel. Not a hope in hell of sliding down that.


See newstory with pic of stairway
www.newsblaze.com/story/20101101092220kays.nb/topstory.html
Just the picture of the stairway
www.newsblaze.com/pix/2010/1101/pix/Megan-Duskey-staircase.230.jpg

The real tragedy of this story is in the banner at the top pf the screen.

Breaking News: Sherman Hemsley of 'The Jeffersons' Dies At Age 74

JohnMarston

Should be laughed out of court tbh, it's her own bloody fault.