Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance v. Sheraton Vermont Corp.
Docket: Case No. 5:15-cv-7
Court: District Court, D. Vermont; April 15, 2016; Federal District Court
In a premises liability case, Plaintiff Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Co. sues on behalf of the owner of a damaged Stradivarius violin, which was harmed when violinist Soovin Kim slipped on the grounds of the Sheraton Hotel in South Burlington, Vermont. Defendants Sheraton Vermont Corporation and J. Hutchins, Inc. have filed Motions for Summary Judgment. Sheraton argues it owed no duty of care and that any breach is countered by Mr. Kim's comparative negligence, while Hutchins seeks summary judgment against Sheraton’s implied indemnity claim. The parties acknowledge no viable contribution claim exists in Vermont.
The court has requested further clarification on the negligence claim and the hotel's grounds. An expert architect's report submitted by the Plaintiff states the premises were unsafe, citing a lack of signage and barriers. On January 14, 2012, Mr. Kim, a hotel guest, slipped on a snow-covered flowerbed while approaching the hotel after a concert. The flowerbed, which separated the parking lot from the walkway, was sloped and covered in a few inches of snow. Mr. Kim fell, damaging the violin, and evidence shows the parking lot was only lightly snowed, without severe weather conditions. An expert opinion from architect Kirk Moore, who investigated the site, supports the Plaintiff's claims with undisputed findings and photographs.
The lack of signage and barriers in the hotel's parking lot is identified as a contributing factor to Mr. Kim's fall, creating a hazardous situation. The parking lot is elevated above the sidewalk leading to Entrance D, the closest access to Mr. Kim's room. Patrons have two safer alternatives to navigate from the parking lot to the sidewalk, which are cleared of snow, but Mr. Kim chose to step onto a flowerbed that slopes to the sidewalk, presenting a greater risk due to ice and snow. The absence of directional signage or barriers may mislead guests, particularly since parked cars can obstruct views of the stairs leading to the walkway. Mr. Moore opines that signage or a barrier should have been installed to guide guests safely.
Regarding the indemnity claim, it is agreed that Third-party Defendant Hutchins held the landscaping contract for the hotel grounds, which included snow removal duties for the parking areas but not for the flowerbeds or gardens during winter. The contract does not impose any obligation to maintain the flowerbed relevant to this case.
In analyzing the case, the summary judgment standard requires the court to view evidence favorably towards the non-moving party, accepting the non-sworn report from Mr. Moore as a summary of his expected testimony. The court must deny the motion if a jury could reasonably side with the plaintiff.
The duty of care under Vermont law mandates landowners to maintain safe premises and protect lawful visitors from foreseeable risks of injury. This standard focuses on the actions of Sheraton, not Mr. Kim’s choices. If Mr. Moore’s opinion is considered valid, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of negligence against Sheraton.
The snow-covered flowerbed posed a clear hazard to pedestrians, evidenced by hotel guests choosing to traverse it. The question of whether a hotelier should have placed a sign or barrier revolves around the foreseeability of risk, with the argument that the likelihood of injury from crossing the flowerbed is minimal, suggesting no warning was necessary. The case highlights issues of comparative negligence, particularly regarding Mr. Kim's decision to cross the flowerbed and the implications for his responsibility in the incident involving a Stradivarius violin. It notes that the Vermont Supreme Court's stance on comparative negligence could limit liability claims, but this matter is not under consideration.
Sheraton seeks indemnity from Hutchins if found liable, acknowledging the lack of contribution rights among joint tortfeasors under Vermont law and no express indemnity provision in their contract. Sheraton relies on implied indemnity but faces significant obstacles, including the absence of a duty on Hutchins' part to maintain the flowerbed, as the contract clearly outlines Hutchins' responsibilities. Additionally, the implied indemnity doctrine necessitates that Sheraton's liability must stem from vicarious responsibility, which is not applicable here since the claims against Sheraton relate to its own decisions about signage and safety measures, not Hutchins’ actions. Thus, Sheraton's claim for implied indemnity is barred under Vermont law due to its lack of independent culpability.
Defendant Sheraton's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, while Third-party Defendant J. Hutchins' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The court estimates a difference in elevation based on photographs related to Mr. Moore’s report, suggesting a change of more than a foot but less than three feet. The evidence includes three steps descending from the parking lot to the sidewalk near Entrance D, indicating a potential elevation change of 21 inches, assuming a maximum riser height of 7 inches per step, in compliance with the International Building Code adopted by Vermont. Although an unsworn statement is not in evidentiary form, it highlights facts that may be presented at trial. The Vermont Supreme Court emphasizes that negligence cannot be attributed to someone misled by circumstances. Key factual issues for the jury include whether the plaintiff was deceived by existing conditions and if he exercised due care in examining the ground for hazards. These longstanding questions remain central to the comparative negligence analysis.
