PERSONAL INJURIESSlip on Wet Dance Floor in Hotel

A hotel lost an appeal against an award of €91,000 made against them following a claim by a wedding guest who slipped and sustained injuries on their wet dance floor.

In May 2015, the respondent was a guest at a wedding in a hotel in Charleville, Co. Cork when she slipped and fractured a heel dancing on the dance floor. The respondent claimed that she was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of her fall and that she had changed from her high heels’ shoes into flip flops. She claimed that the dance floor, unknown to her, was wet which caused her to slip. She further claimed that no staff member cleared up spills on the floor and there was a shortage of hotel staff on the night.

The hotel claimed that the floor was in fact dry, that the respondent was intoxicated and was wearing high heels at the time of the accident. While the area of the accident was covered by CCTV, the hotel had not retained footage as it found it to be ‘grainy.’

The action commenced in the High Court which found that the injured lady’s action was grounded upon the duty owed to her pursuant to the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 and s.4 of the Hotel Proprietors Act 1963 which provides:

‘’Where a person is received as a guest at a hotel, whether or not under special contract, the proprietor of the hotel is under a duty to take reasonable care of the person of the guest and to ensure that, for the purpose of personal use by the guest, the premises are as safe as reasonable care and skill can make them.”

The High Court judge was not satisfied with the witness for the hotel claiming the plaintiff was intoxicated as the witness had based it on the behaviour of people at similar events. Neither was the judge satisfied with the same witness's account that the dance floor was not wet because evidence suggested the hotel was not monitoring it nor had a system in place for monitoring it.  

Regarding damages, the injured plaintiff/respondent submitted two medical reports while the hotel offered no medical evidence.

The injured plaintiff/respondent required surgery on her foot and was out of work for 14 weeks. She required physiotherapy and walked with a limp. The parties agreed that the injury fell with what is called Category 5 of the scale of damages and the High Court awarded her €91,000 in damages.

The hotel appealed this to the Court of Appeal. The Appeal court was surprised at the manner in which the High Court judge reasoned his finding of negligence, but the court did not disturb it. The Court of Appeal did comment on whether the High Court judge had considered contributory negligence by the plaintiff. On balance, while the High Court judge did not specifically mention contributory negligence, it believed that the judge had taken that into consideration in his decision.

The hotel submitted in its appeal that the award of €91,000 was disproportionate to the injury caused but the Court of Appeal was reluctant to change that as it had been ruled in Rossiter v Dun Laoghaire County Council [2001] 3 IR 578 that ‘’ an appellate court must not interfere with an award unless satisfied that it was so disproportionate as to amount to an error of law’’.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal was reluctant to alter the award made in the High Court and dismissed the appeal of the hotel.

Sweeney v Atlantic Troy Limited [2023] IECA 268.