Hammerstein v. Jean Development West
907 P.2d 975, 1995 Nev. LEXIS 174, 111 Nev. 1471 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the thin skull rule, a defendant must take their victim as they find them and is liable for the full extent of injuries caused, even when a victim's pre-existing condition makes the harm more severe than foreseeable. Additionally, a proprietor may breach its duty of reasonable care if it fails to remedy a known, recurring problem with its safety systems.
Facts:
- George W. Hammerstein, a seventy-year-old diabetic man, informed the Nevada Landing Hotel and Casino staff that his medical condition made it inadvisable for him to use stairs.
- The hotel assigned Hammerstein a room on the fourth floor despite his disclosed medical limitations.
- In the early morning of January 1, 1990, a fire alarm sounded, causing a hotel-wide evacuation and the automatic shutdown of the elevators.
- Hammerstein was forced to descend four flights of steep, metal stairs, during which he slipped, twisted his ankle, and developed a blister.
- The alarm was determined to be false, and evidence showed the hotel's alarm system had activated at least eleven times in the preceding three months.
- The blister on Hammerstein's foot, exacerbated by his diabetes, developed into a gangrenous infection requiring extensive medical treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- George W. Hammerstein filed a complaint against Nevada Landing Hotel and Casino in a Nevada district court, alleging negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and strict liability.
- Nevada Landing filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Nevada Landing, finding no negligence.
- Hammerstein appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a hotel's failure to remedy a fire alarm system known to have frequent false alarms create a triable issue of fact for negligence when a guest with diabetes is injured during an evacuation and suffers severe complications due to his pre-existing condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A hotel's failure to remedy a known, faulty fire alarm system creates a triable issue of fact for negligence. A proprietor owes invitees a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Evidence that the hotel's fire alarm system malfunctioned frequently could lead a jury to conclude that the hotel breached this duty by not acting reasonably to fix the problem. Applying the thin skull rule, the hotel did not need to foresee the specific extent of Hammerstein's injury (gangrene) but only that its negligent conduct could cause a particular variety of harm—such as an injury from a fall during an evacuation—to a guest. The severe complications from his diabetes illustrate that defendants must take victims as they find them.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark case for illustrating the thin skull (eggshell skull) rule in tort law—defendants are liable for the full extent of injuries caused, even when a victim's pre-existing condition makes the harm disproportionately severe. The case also clarifies that a proprietor's duty of reasonable care extends to the proper maintenance of safety equipment. A history of malfunctions constitutes constructive notice of a dangerous condition, creating potential breach of duty if not remedied. The foreseeability doctrine requires only that defendants anticipate the general type of harm, not the specific manner or extent of injury, which significantly aids plaintiffs with unusual chains of causation leading to severe damages.
Unlock the full brief for Hammerstein v. Jean Development West