UPDATE: See the comment of plaintiff's attorney Steven Gertler after the jump. Thank you to everyone who commented and continue to comment on this case.
Originally posted by Bar-tender on 10/05/09:
A man is suing Hilton after he tripped on an "unattended piece of luggage."
Plaintiff Richard J. Wood alleges that on October 7, 2007, while he was a guest at Palmer House on Monroe Street in Chicago and was "walking in, at or near an executive level floor area snack or guest room and/or concierge desk," he tripped over luggage in said area.
The complaint asserts, among other things, that defendant Palmer House Hilton Hotel had a duty to "maintain said hotel area in a safe condition, free of luggage left unattended and posing as an obstacle to guests walking at or near said area of the hotel."
Read the complaint after the jump.
For Tweets of recent legal filings and legal news, follow me on Twitter at jenfernicola.
14 Comments
dockster said:
you know, its not like the hotel willfully strew luggage around so that he would trip. Has he not heard of keeping his eyes open as he walks???? I hope this gets dismissed asap.
antuck said:
First I admit to not being a lawyer nor did I read the whole complaint. But a couple of things jump out at me. You said "walking in, at or near an executive level floor area snack or guest room and/or concierge desk," he tripped over luggage in said area." Sounds like they don't even know where this happened except they knew they were in the Hilton. Then just reading the fist page of the complaint. It says "that on or about October 7, 2007" They don't know what day this happened?
Just those two comments make me think this is a frivolous law suit. You have no clue where it happened or what day it happened. And then I think what ever happened to personal responsibility? Can people no longer look where they are walking? Do we not own any responsibility for our actions anymore?
Suthnautr said:
A Big Boo-Hoo-Hoo for Hilton
I worked for the Hilton corporation for fourteen years.
You would be quite surprised how many unattended or underattended bags were stolen from the Hilton Lobby while I was there. I'm surprised that the guest whose bags this gentleman tripped over is not also suing the Hilton.
While I am not a lawyer, many law suits were brought against the Hilton Hotel that I worked at. If water or some other liquid is accidentally spilled and reported to management (if someone is made aware) then a resulting injury case is almost guaranteed to win if management / employees did nothing to prominently mark the spot with warning cones and immediately clean it up.
Those bags did not just "spill" off of a baggage cart, and even if they did spill, someone would have noticed. No. These bags were placed on the floor, on purpose, without regard to the safety of those who might be walking down the hall expecting the way to be clear. Furthermore, in the event of a fire, that hallway is the only egress available and might be filled with smoke.
It is the Hilton's obligation to properly maintain their property at all times (as they are open 24 hours a day), to properly instruct their staff in safety procedures, and to properly staff areas where guests check in and out.
I also worked on the executive level floor at the Hilton I was employed at. It is billed as a "Hotel Within a Hotel" with it's own Executive Lounge Bar and Concierge check-in/check-out desk. The check in desk is manned 24 hours a day. No bags should be left out in the open public hallway because it is a fire hazard.
In this case the $50,000 should be awarded for the above stated reasons alone.
docnarc said:
BULLSHIT!! The person filing the lawsuit should have his ass kicked and the lawyer should also have his/her ass kicked. It is not Hilton's fault that the stumble idiot cannot watch where he walks or pick up his big fat feet. He is a turd, a real pond scum who is trying to scam Hilton and so is the attorney. I wonder how many other lawsuits that he has filed, the lazy fart?
jmp1947 said:
Yes, and if he splashes himself at the urinal on his new suit he should be able to sue as well for no "splash guards" installed, (which haven't been invented yet".) Sounds like you're "sour grapes" toward your experience at the Hilton.
gryfox1 said:
I feel the Hilton should properly maintain their property but I don't believe the luggage was left on purpose and the guest would have to be legally blind or just blind not to notice the luggage. This guest should NOT be given $50,000, but his stay should only be compt. People are much to "sue" happy. People today don't like to take responsibility for themselves and their mistakes.
azbeener said:
Wow, amazing how there is no shortage of bottom feeding blood sucking attorneys to jump on the nearest gravy train! ROTFL
RT
www.complete-privacy.net.tc
Mad Jayhawk said:
This is obviously George Bush's fault.
stevengertler said:
I am the lawyer in this matter. My client was carrying a tray of coffee and tripped over unattended luggage in a hallway. The fall resulted in a rotator cuff and meniscus tear, requiring two surgeries, rehabilitation, and substantial medical expenses. The hotel had a legal duty to keep the hallway used by it's guests free of tripping hazards. I would agree that the earth is not flat, that hotels have luggage, and that people should be responsible to watch where they are going. However, that does not excuse the hotel from maintaining it's premises in a safe condition so as to prevent injuries to its guests.
Jason said:
How do we know this isn't just someone purporting to be Steven Gertler? It does not seem to me that trolling internet blogs and commenting on pending litigation would be a best practice for an attorney. Either way, Steve, "it's" and "its" are not interchangeable; you're using the wrong one.
Jennifer Fernicola said:
Thanks, Jason. I actually thought of that and then thought perhaps I should be more trusting of someone writing in and standing up for plaintiff. But, thanks for your comment and making a good point.
jmp1947 said:
There was a reason why lawyers were prohibited at one time to advertise on radio and television and that is proved by the commercials we see today that put ideas into peoples' heads who are perfectly ok but see an opportunity to milk what is seen as an impersonal "fat tit". On a smaller scale, that's why people steal from their workplace. We should have the system where you pay if you lose. We'll see how many lawyers would take these silly cases then.
Cal30 said:
What a dork. It's called "look before you leap".
Lawbro said:
This is your jury pool Mr. Gertler; good luck!
Though it doesn't sound like the distraction exception that you're setting up will get past summary judgment on an open and obvious motion. As I'm sure you know, the distraction exception has been significantly narrowed since Ward v. Kmart and now the defendant must be the entity that created the distraction...and I'm thinking that carrying coffee isn't a distraction created by the hotel.
As for the comment regarding a loser pays systems, to an extent we already have that system at least when it comes to personal injury cases in Illinois. Usually the plaintiff's attorney pays all costs associated with filing and prosecuting the case and is only reimbursed if he recovers. Therefore, if you as the plaintiff's attorney loses, you're out what can be thousands if not tens-of-thousands or hundreds-of-thousands of dollars.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: