Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Wallace v. M&C Hotel Interests, Inc.
Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 3647Docket: 503 CA 16-01090
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 5, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of Wallace v. M&C Hotel Interests, Inc., decided on May 5, 2017, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a lower court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, who were accused of negligence related to a near-drowning incident involving the plaintiff's son in a hotel pool. The plaintiff's claims included the absence of lifeguards, inadequate supervision of bathers, overcrowding in the pool, and the presence of a dangerous condition due to children playing around the pool. On appeal, the plaintiff abandoned the argument regarding overcrowding. The defendants demonstrated compliance with the New York State Sanitary Code, which allowed for reduced supervision requirements (Supervision Level IV) for hotel pools, indicating they were not obligated to provide lifeguards. A report from the Erie County Department of Health confirmed that the hotel pool was appropriately classified under this supervision level. The court emphasized that for negligence to be established, a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff must be shown. Since the defendants met the regulatory requirements for supervision, the court concluded that they had no duty to provide lifeguards or enhanced supervision, thereby dismissing those claims. The court also upheld the dismissal of claims related to the alleged dangerous condition created by children in the pool area. Landowners and business proprietors have a duty to keep their properties reasonably safe and may need to control the behavior of third parties on their premises under certain conditions. This duty exists when landowners can control third persons and are aware of the necessity for such control. In the case at hand, even if there is a factual dispute about whether the plaintiff's son's injuries were caused by a dangerous condition or other factors, the defendants demonstrated that they were unaware of the need to control the children and lacked the opportunity to do so. The plaintiff did not establish a triable issue of fact to counter this. Consequently, the arguments regarding assumption of risk are rendered irrelevant.