Hunn v. Windsor Hotel Co.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Torts

TortsNegligenceAssumption of RiskInnkeepershotel keeperlodgerpublic passagewaysreasonable care

Facts

Defendant operated a hotel in Wheeling, and plaintiff had lodged there for eight years. The day before plaintiff's injury, defendant repaired marble steps leading from the lobby to the Main Street entrance by placing new treads with cement and covering them with heavy planks that were not new, were not entirely firm under foot, and left uncovered spaces at each end. Plaintiff used the planks the evening before, thought they were dangerous because nothing held them down, and the next morning descended them in her usual walk, when a plank moved and she fell, fracturing her ankle. Other guests had fallen or stumbled on the stairway the previous evening, one fall was reported to the hotel clerk, the manager admitted prior knowledge, and the steps were neither roped off nor marked with warning signs, although other reasonably convenient exits existed.

Issue

Whether the evidence required submission to a jury on the hotel's negligence, or whether plaintiff was barred as a matter of law because she voluntarily assumed the risk of using steps she fully appreciated to be dangerous. Also implicated was whether plaintiff's conduct constituted contributory negligence merely because she used the steps despite knowing of the danger.

Rule

A hotel keeper must exercise reasonable care to keep public passageways of the hotel safe for lodgers, but is not an insurer of their safety. Assumption of risk is distinct from contributory negligence: contributory negligence turns on carelessness, while assumption of risk turns on voluntary exposure to a known and appreciated danger. The doctrine of assumption of risk rests on two premises: the nature and extent of the risk are fully appreciated, and the risk is voluntarily incurred.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Maya Collins had been staying for several months at the Lakeview Crest Hotel in Cleveland. During repairs, the hotel covered a lobby stairway with temporary wooden panels that shifted slightly underfoot; Maya noticed the panels were unsecured, thought they were dangerous, and still used that stairway the next morning even though an elevator and a side exit were both open and reasonably convenient.

If Maya is injured when a panel shifts, which is the most accurate result under the governing rule?

Explanation. A hotel keeper must use reasonable care to keep public passageways safe, but is not an insurer. Even where the evidence could support hotel negligence, recovery is barred if the guest fully appreciated the danger and voluntarily incurred it. Here Maya knew the panels were unsecured and dangerous, yet used them despite other reasonably convenient alternatives, which establishes assumption of risk. (Derived from Hunn v. Windsor Hotel Co. (n.d.).)