What does it mean to be careless when hosting? It refers to the incapacity of a
place or hotel to uphold its duty of care or to take the required safety
measures to ensure the guests' well-being. If the injured party can show that
you did not act appropriately to resolve the matter, they will only be eligible
for compensation if they can show that you were aware of the risky
What Does The Duty Of Care Entail?
When conducting business or communicating with another person or entity in any
other capacity, an individual or organization owes them a duty of care. A person
or organization has a duty of care to behave in a way that would be anticipated
of a prudent person, according to tort law. The individual who breached their
duty of care is liable for any harm that another person sustains as a result of
another person's thoughtless or reckless behavior. Any behavior that a person or
group may reasonably be anticipated to damage other people ought to be avoided.
This responsibility is referred to as a "duty of care".
Hotels are expected, like other companies, to give their customers a safe space
to avoid injury. This means keeping an eye on how employees deal with visitors
and taking responsibility for their clients' security to ensure that they are
neither irresponsible nor thoughtless.
A Duty Of Care Is Owed When?
The idea of foreseeability is where the concept of a duty of care originated. In
the case of Heaven v. Pender (1883)[i], Brett M.R. stated the following:
"An obligation to exert adequate precautions and expertise to avoid such a risk
arises where a single person is placed in a situation involving another person
that is so difficult that is of common sense who did think would at once
comprehend that if he did not use common care and competence in his behaviour
those instances, he would cause jeopardy of injury to the person or property of
The court's decisions in Heaven v. Pender
(previous)[ii] and Le Lievre v.
[iii] were approved in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)[iv], Lord Atkin
The first inquiry a lawyer asks is, "Who is my neighbour?" For the time being,
the law forbids you from causing harm to your neighbour and offers a limited
recourse. You must take appropriate measures to stop any behaviour that you
would reasonably anticipate endangering your neighbour. So who lives next door
to my in-laws? The correct response seems to be: "Person(s) who are so
profoundly and closely influenced through my act that I ought substantially to
have them taken into account as being thus impacted when I concentrate my mind
on the behaviours or actions which are called into question."
How To Show Negligence
You must prove the hotel's negligence to establish its liability for your
personal injury claim. This suggests that you will need to demonstrate both how
the hotel violated its obligation to keep you safe and how that violation caused
It is the hotel's responsibility to maintain and inspect the property's grounds.
They have to act to get rid of any dangerous situations or, at the absolute
least, shield guests from harm. A notice alerting guests to the possibility of
water on the floor must be posted by the hotel if a pipe leak into a hallway
cannot be fixed right away. A hotel must maintain clear stairs, have adequate
lighting, and abide by all applicable laws. To avoid tripping, make sure the
steps are dry and free of ice, debris, and other potential hazards.
keep their buildings secure, manage insect infestations, employ workers with due
caution, teach pool personnel to avoid mishaps, and maintain the condition of
their room locks. The hotel's top priorities while guests are staying there are
their safety and the protection of their belongings. The components you usually
need to present to successfully file a personal injury lawsuit against a hotel
are covered in this article.
How To Establish A Hotel's Negligence
In the majority of personal injury cases, the plaintiff must demonstrate that
the harm they endured was caused by the negligence or misconduct of another
individual. To legally hold the hotel liable for injuries you suffered on the
premises, you will probably have to present proof of some kind of negligence. To
accomplish this, you will have to present proof that the hotel violated an
obligation owed to you and that your injuries were the consequence of the
In its ruling in the case of Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Company
Ltd. & Ors[v], the Apex Court issued its decision on November 14, 2019.
The Court ruled that under no circumstances may a hotel owner bargain their way
out of responsibility for their negligence or the fault of their employees about
a guest's vehicle.
Facts of the case
At approximately 11 p.m. on August 1, 1998, a man drove his Maruti Zen to the
Taj Mahal Hotel. He gave the key to the valet parking staff when he arrived at
the hotel and went inside. He was later informed by the hotel administration
that his car had been stolen as he was leaving the establishment at one in the
Three teenagers drove up in a different car that evening, parked it, and entered
the hotel, according to a statement from the establishment. They waited for a
while before coming out and having the valet retrieve their vehicle from the
parking lot. While the Maruti Zen was being transported, one of them grabbed the
keys and drove off in it. Despite the security guard's best efforts, the car
The owner of the car found out and reported it to the authorities, but they were
unable to locate the vehicle. Because the parking voucher stated that it was at
the "owner's risk," the hotel declined to pay the full value of the car as well
as compensation for the lack of services, even though the car insurance had
settled the claim with the individual.
Following a hearing on the case, the State Commission first mandated that the
hotel pays Rs 50,000 in litigation costs to the car's insurer, Rs 2,80,000 for
the car's value, plus 12% interest per year. The commission also mandated that
the hotel pay the car owner Rs. 1,000,000 in compensation.
The National Commission denied the hotel's appeal as well. Its appeal was then
heard by the Supreme Court. The highest court, however, also rejected the
Following a hearing on the matter, the court declared: "Under no circumstances
may the hotel owner enter into a contract regarding a guest's vehicle out of
obligation for its negligence or the fault of its staff. Once custody is turned
over to the hotel staff or valet, there is an implied contractual obligation to
return the car in a secure condition at the owner's discretion.
Under Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act, the hotel has an assumed
burden of proof to show that any damage or loss to the parked cars was not
caused by its carelessness or negligence, even in the case of a specific or
general exclusion clause. The exemption clause cannot take effect until this
burden of proof has been removed. The hotel will also bear the responsibility of
proving that such loss or wreckage was covered by the exclusion clause.
The Supreme Court ruled that the hotel had to explain why it was not negligent
or at fault for not returning the car to its rightful owner. The top court
decided that even though valet parking is offered by upscale hotels, those
establishments cannot escape responsibility if a guest's vehicle is lost,
stolen, or destroyed.
When a hotel voluntarily agrees to park an owner's car, store it in its
safekeeping, and return it after receiving a parking receipt in a manner that
takes control of the vehicle's parking away from the owner, that arrangement is
known as a contract of bailment. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the hotel
would have to give the car back in the same condition that it was delivered.
You could be eligible for compensation if you can show that a hotel was
negligent and that your harm was caused by this carelessness. For several
reasons, hotels might be held liable for tourist harm. You might be able to get
compensation for losses such as pain and suffering, medical costs, missed
income, psychological discomfort, and companionship.
- Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 9, Act of Parliament, 1872 (India)
- Heaven v. Pender (1883)11 QBD 503 at 509
- Heaven v. Pender (1883)11 QBD 503 at 509
- Le Lievre v. Gould (1893) 1 QB 491 at 497
- Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562 at 581
- Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors (Civil Appeal No 8611 of 2019)