S

A
S
E
I
T
I
L
I
B
I
S
N
O
P
S
E
R
YO U R
R
O
T
A
R
E
P
O
HOTEL
INTRODUCTION

IN THIS CHAPTER,
YOU WILL LEARN:
1. To differentiate between the types of legal duties required of a
hospitality operator, and the consequences of the failure to
exercise reasonable care in fulfilling these duties.
2. To evaluate operational activities in light of their impact on guest
safety and potential legal damages.
3.
To create a checklist of the steps that should be initiated
immediately following an accident.

1.1 DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF A HOSPITALITY

OPERATOR
Duty of care:
A legal obligation that requires a particular standard of
conduct.
Duties of Care
For example, a restaurateur has a duty of care to provide food that is safe and
wholesome for guests.
While hospitality operators are not required to be insurers of their guests safety,
and are generally not held liable for events they could not reasonably foresee, they
are required to act prudently and use reasonable care, as defined later in this
chapter, to fulfill their duties of care.

Because of the wide variety of facilities they operate, hospitality managers can
encounter a variety of duties of care. These include the duties:
1. Provide a reasonably safe premise. This would include all public space, the interior of
guestrooms, dining rooms, and the exterior space that make up the operators total
physical facility.
2. Serve food and beverages fit for consumption. This duty of care is shared with those who
supply products to a foodservice operator, and would also include the techniques used by an
operator to prepare and serve food or beverages.
3. Serve alcoholic beverages responsibly. Because of its extreme importance.
4. Hire qualified employees. This duty must be satisfied to protect yourself against charges of
negligent
hiring
other potential
liabilities.
5. Properly
trainand
employees.
This duty
must be satisfied to protect yourself against charges of
negligent staff training.
6. Terminate employees who pose a danger to other employees or guests. This duty must be
satisfied to protect yourself against charges of negligent employee retention.
7. Warn of unsafe conditions. When an operator is aware, (or, in some cases, should be
aware) of conditions that pose a threat to safety (such as a wet floor or broken sidewalk),
those conditions must be made obvious to the guest.
8. Safeguard guest property, especially when voluntarily accepting possession of it.

Standards of Care
Standard of care:
The industry-recognized, reasonably accepted level of performance used in
fulfilling a duty of care
In fulfilling the duties of care just detailed, you must exercise a standard of care
appropriate to the given situation. An appropriate standard of care is
determined, in part, on the level of services a guest would reasonably expect to
find in a hospitality facility.
For example, a guest departing on a seven-day cruise of the Pacific would
reasonably expect that the ships staff would include a full-time doctor. The same
guest visiting a quick-service restaurant at 11:00 P.M. would not expect to find a
doctor on hand. In both cases, it is possible that a guest could suffer a heart
attack and require medical care. The ships standard of care, however, would
include medical treatment, while the restaurants would not.

THEORIES OF LIABILITY
Despite the best efforts of management, accidents involving people can and do
happen in hospitality facilities. Employees and guests are subject to many of the same
risks in a hospitality facility that they are subject to outside the facility.
For example,
it is just as possible to trip and fall in a restaurant parking lot as it is to fall in a grocery
store parking lot. It is not your responsibility as a hospitality manager to ensure that
accidents never happen in your facility; that would be impossible. It is your
responsibility to operate in a manner that is as safe as possible, and to react
responsibly when an accident does occur. If you do not, the legal system is designed
to hold you and your operation accountable.

Reasonable Care

Hospitality managers must strive to provide an environment that is safe and

secure.

For example, a hotel manager who rents a room with a lock on the door should be responsible
for ensuring that the lock is in proper working order. A guest would reasonably expect the hotel
to provide a lock that was in working order.
In fact, the concept of reasonability is so pervasive in law that it literally sets the standard of
care that hospitality organizations must provide for their employees and guests. That standard
is embodied in the concept of reasonable care.
Reasonable care:
The degree of care
that a reasonably
prudent person
would use in a
similar situation.
Essentially,
reasonable
care
requires you to correct potentially
harmful situations that you know
exist, or that you could have
reasonably foreseen.

The level of reasonable care that must be

exercised in a given situation can sometimes be
difficult to establish.
In the case of the manager supplying a guestroom
with a working lock, the standard is quite clear.
It becomes complex, however, when the guest
actually uses the lock.
What if the guest does not use the lock
properly, or forgets to use it at all?
What if the guest abuses the lock to the
point where it does not function and then
has a theft from his or her room?
Clearly, in these cases, the guest bears some
or all of
the responsibility for his or her own acts.

THEREFORE:
The
doctrine
of
reasonable
care
places a significant
burden on you as a
hospitality manager.
It requires that you
use all of your skill
and experience to
operate your facility
in a manner that
would be consistent
with
that
of
a
reasonable
person(or manager)
in a similar set of
circumstances.

CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
NEGLIGENCE
The omission of that degree of diligence which is required by
the nature of the obligation an to the circumstances of the
persons, time and place. (Art. 1173, NCC)
KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE
1. Quasi delict (Art. 2176 NCC)
2. Criminal negligence (Art. 356 RPC)
3. Contractual negligence (NCC provisions on
contracts particularly Arts. 1170 to 1174)

TORTS AND DAMAGES (ARTS. 21762194 OF

THE
NCC)
CHAPTER 1: CONCEPT OF TORTS
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
ELEMENTS OF QUASI DELICT/TORTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Act or omission
Damage or injury is caused to another
Fault or negligence is present
There is no pre-existing contractual relations between the parties
Causal connection between damage done and act/omission

TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable care and
caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation
--------if not, then he is guilty of negligence
Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the
course pursued?
---------If so, it is the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against harm

CIRCUMSTANCES TO
CONSIDER
Time
Place
Personal circumstances
of the Actors

GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY (pater familias)

The only standard of conduct used in the
Philippines (Art. 1173 NCC)
A reasonable man is deemed to have
knowledge of the facts that a man should be
expected to know based on ordinary human
experience.

CASES:
MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC., Petitioner, v. ELLEN JOHANNE HARPER, JONATHAN
CHRISTOPHER HARPER, and RIGOBERTO GILLERA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 189998 : August 29, 2012

FACTS:

In the first week of November 1999, Christian Harper (Harper) came to Manila on a business trip. He
checked in at the Makati Shangri-La Hotel and was billeted at Room 1428. He was due to check out on
November 6, 1999. In the early morning of that date, however, he was murdered inside his hotel room by
still unidentified malefactors.

Col. Rodrigo de Guzman, the hotels Security Manager, testified that the management practice prior to the
murder of Harper:
1. had been to deploy only one security or roving guard for every three or four floors of the building;
2. that such ratio had not been enough considering the L-shape configuration of the hotel that rendered the
hallways not visible from one or the other end;
3. and that he had recommended to management to post a guard for each floor, but his recommendation
had been disapproved because the hotel "was not doing well" at that particular time.

Thus, the heirs of Christian Harper sued the hotel

for damages.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Makati Shangri-La Hotel is liable to pay damages?

HELD: yes..

"negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by

those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the
situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably
require.
TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary
prudent person would have used in the same situation
--------if not, then he is guilty of negligence
Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course pursued?
---------If so, it is the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against harm

Liability on the part of the defendant is based

upon the fact that he was in a better situation
than the injured person to foresee and prevent
the happening of the injurious occurrence.
Moreover, in applying the premises liability rule in the
instant case as it is applied in some jurisdiction in the
United States, it is enough that guests are injured while
inside the hotel premises to make the hotelkeeper
Proximate
cause is defined as that
liable."
cause,
which,
in
natural
and

continuous sequence, unbroken by

any
efficient
intervening
cause,
produces, the injury, and without
which the result would not have
To occurred.
reiterate,
defendant-appellant
is
engaged in a business imbued with public
interest, ergo, it is bound to provide
adequate security to its guests.

WHAT MUST BE PROVED

1. NEGLIGENCE - plaintiff must prove negligence of defendant
Exceptions:
a. In cases where negligence is presumed or imputed by law - this is only
rebuttable/presumption juris tantum
b. Principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) - grounded on the difficulty
in proving thru competent evidence, public policy considerations
2. DAMAGE / INJURY
3. CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN NEGLIGENCE AND DAMAGE Defendants
negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the plaintiff to
enable plaintiff to recover. Thus, if plaintiffs own conduct is the cause of the injury
there can be no recovery.

Doctrine of Proximate cause is

defined as that cause, which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any
efficient
intervening
cause,
produces, the injury, and without which
the result would not have occurred.

DEFENSES
1. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - the plaintiff was also negligent together with
the defendant; to constitute a defense, proximate cause of injury/damage must be
the negligence of defendant
Consider the case of the wedding guest who attends an evening reception at a local
country club. In the course of the evening, the guest leaves the clubhouse and
wanders onto the golf course. Because the course is not lit at night, the guest trips
over a railroad tie used to define the tee box on the third hole.
The guest may claim that the club should have marked the railway tie as a hazard,
and that it should have reasonably foreseen that guests would leave the clubhouse
and walk on the golf course. The clubs attorney, however, is likely to maintain, and
rightly so, that walking at night on an unlighted golf course is dangerous and the guest
did not exercise reasonable care.

EFFECT:
The courts have held that the contributory negligence of the
injured party can reduce an operators liability for the
damages suffered.

Comparative negligence: Shared responsibility for the harm that results from
negligence. The comparison of negligence by the defendant with the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff. Also known as comparative fault.
This is the doctrine being applied in our jurisdiction wherein the contributory negligence
of the plaintiff does not completely bar recovery but merely results in mitigation of
liability;
it is a partial
defense.
2. CONCURRENT
NEGLIGENCE
if both
parties are equally negligent the courts will leave them as
they are; there can be no recovery
3. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE even though a persons own acts may have placed him in a
position of peril and an injury results, the injured is entitled to recover if the defendant thru the exercise
of reasonable care and prudence might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff. This defense
is available only in an action by the driver or owner of one vehicle against the driver or owner of the other
vehicle involved.
4. EMERGENCY RULE - "one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act
without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty
of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better
method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence."

NOTE: Applicable only to situations that are sudden

and unexpected such as to deprive actor of all
opportunity
for
deliberation
(absence
of
foreseeability); the action shall still be judged by the
standard of the ordinary prudent man

5. DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK volenti non fit injuria

REQUISITES:
a. Intentional exposure to a known danger
b. One who voluntarily assumed the risk of an injury from a known danger cannot
recover in an action for negligence or an injury is incurred
c. Plaintiffs acceptance of risk (by law/contract/nature of obligation) has erased
defendants duty so that his negligence is not a legal wrong
d. Applies to all known danger
Generally If the plaintiff had knowledge of and voluntarily assumed an unreasonable
risk that the defendant created, the plaintiff is barred from any recovery. There are two
types of assumption of risk:
1.Express Assumption of Risk --The plaintiff may explicitly agree with the
defendant, in advance of being injured, not to hold the defendant liable for any
injuries. Express agreements will be enforced unless they are contrary to public policy.
Public policy issues to consider:

a. The relative bargaining power of the plaintiff and the defendant.

Whether the waiver of liability was apparent to the plaintiff, or
would have been apparent to a reasonable person. The scope of
the waiver e., a waiver of liability for negligence will not waive
liability for grossly negligent or intentionally tortious conduct.

.Implied Assumption of Risk--- Even in the absence of an express agreement, a plaintiff can still assume the risk if:
the plaintiff knows of the risk, and
the plaintiffs actions imply a voluntary assumption of the risk.
Examples:
A .Spectators are held to impliedly assume certain risks when they go to a sporting event and are injured as a
natural and foreseeable result of the sport.
Firefighters and police officers cannot sue for injuries sustained in their lines of work since they knowingly and
voluntarily undertake the risk.
6. DUE DILIGENCE - diligence required by law/contract/ depends on circumstances of persons, places,
things
7. FORTUITOUS EVENT - no person shall be responsible for those events which cannot be foreseen, or
which through foreseen were inevitable
REQUISITES:
a. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with
his obligation, must be independent of the human will;
b. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes caso fortuito or if it can be
foreseen it must be impossible to avoid
c. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner
d. The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor

8. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA a principle that involves damage without injury,

therefore no liability is incurred; there is no legal injury
9. LAW specific provision of law
10. EXERCISE OF THE DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY IN THE
SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES
11. PRESCRIPTION
a. Injury to right of plaintiff/quasi delict - 4 years
b. Defamation - 1 year
c. When no specific provision, must be counted
from the day they may be brought
12. PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DOUBLE RECOVERY - Responsibility for fault or
negligence under quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from civil action arising
from the RPC but plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for same act or omission of
the defendant
13. ACT OR OMISSION IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE

WHO SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR A QUASI-DELICT

1. TORTFEASOR - Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being no fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done (art 2176).
2. PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE the obligation imposed in 2176 is
demandable not only for ones own act or omission but also for those persons for
whom one is responsible (art 2180).
Vicarious Liability law on imputed negligence; a
person who himself is not guilty of negligence is made
liable for conduct of another

WHO ARE THE PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE:

1. PARENTS - The father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother are
responsible for damage caused by minor children who live in their company.
Father and Mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over common children.
In case of disagreement, father's decision shall prevail (art 211).

NOTE: Persons liable for the act of minors other than parents.
a. Those exercising substitute parental authority
b. Surviving grandparents
c. Oldest sibling, over 21 years old unless unfit or unqualified
d. Childs actual custodian, over 21 years old unless unfit or disqualified
OWNERS & MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENT/ENTERPRISE - Owners & managers of establishment or
enterprise are responsible for damages caused by their employees who are:
a. in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed OR
b. in occasion of their function
EMPLOYERS - Employers shall be liable for damages caused by their:
a. employees and
b. household helpers
c. who are acting w/in the scope of their assigned task even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry (unlike in RPC subsidiary liability of employer attaches in case of insolvency of employer
for as long as the employer is engaged in business/industry)
DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYERS:
a. exercise of due diligence ins election and supervision of employees
b. act/omission was made outside working hours and in violation of company's rules and regulations

Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable
for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation
exists between them and the consumers
WHO ARE LIABLE UNDER THIS ART?
---MANUFACTURERS AND PROCESSORS OF FOODSTUFF, DRINKS, TOILET ARTICLES AND SIMILAR GOODS
FOR WHAT SHALL THEY BE HELD LIABLE?
1. Death or
2. Injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relations exists
between them and the consumer.

Strict liability:
Responsibility
arising
from
the nature of a dangerous
activity
rather
than
negligence
or
an
intentional act. Also
known
as
absolute
liability or liability without
fault.

For example, if an
amusement park elected to train a wild tiger as part of its promotional
activities, it would be held responsible for the tigers actions, even if the
park could not be proved to be negligent in the tigers handling. This is true
because keeping dangerous animals in close proximity to people is, in
itself, a dangerous activity, and one that was voluntarily undertaken by the
amusement park. In these types of circumstances, those who engage in the
activity are judged not by their actions, but by the nature of the activity
itself, which creates absolute, or strict liability.

DOCTRINES:
Intentional act:
A willful action undertaken
with
or
without
full
understanding
of
its
consequences.

If the employees of an innkeeper intentionally invade the privacy of a

guest (e.g., viewing guest behavior in a guestroom via a hidden video
camera), the innkeeper is subject to severe liability, including punitive
damages.

To illustrate this concept, consider this situation: It is late Friday night, about 11 P.M.,
and your bar is packed210 people at last count. Your fire occupancy limit is 125, but
nobody pays attention to those signs. So far, the night has been fairly peaceful. You
finally have a chance to sit down for a moment, so you take a seat at the end of the
bar where you can see whats going on, and you ask your bartender to pour you a
long, tall, cold ginger ale.
The drink arrives, and as it touches your lipsflash!out of the corner of your eye,
you see a flurry of activity. Two guys are fighting, and really going at it. You grab one
guy and the bouncer grabs the other. There is blood all over the face of the guy you
grabbed, and he is wailing. You notice a broken beer mug on the table. Three girls
are screaming hysterically and wiping blood off their clothes and skin.

You finally get things calmed down, transport the injured patron to the hospital, and start
collecting information. You find out:
a. The fight started when a guy asked one of the girls to dance; she declined, and everyone
at the table, including the subsequently injured patron, began laughing.
b. The guy who asked the girl to dance took offense, picked up an empty beer mug, and
smashed it into the face of Mr. Laughter.
c. The two guys had never seen each other before.
d. The girls had never seen the dancer before the incident occurred.
Are you financially responsible for the injuries?
Historically, the courts have decided that a hospitality operator is not responsible for
damages suffered by a patron that were caused by the intentional actions of a third party,
when the third party is a customer or guest. The courts rationale is that the intentional or
criminal act of a third party could not be foreseen by the operator; therefore, it would be
impossible for the operator to take any precautions or preventative measures to keep it from
happening