Manager of the Vacation Inn - Essay Example

The Inn installed a ten-foot wire-mesh fence around the pool. Two weeks ago, however, your staff found the body of a homeless man in the pool. An investigation determined that the individual climbed the fence in an inebriated state and lost consciousness upon entering the water. The decedent’s relatives are now suing the Inn. Your district manager asks you to “put an end to such problems,” and warns you that another incident like this could “cost you your job.” While you are certainly sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, you also want to keep your job.

You feel that installing barbed wire at the top of the fence would be inhumane and would also scare your guests. Instead, you opt to turn to a small company that manufactures electric fences for cattle. The solution they recommend is to run a “hot wire” at the top of the fence. The wire would deliver a mild, normally non-lethal, electric shock to a would-be trespasser. A week later you install the wire. Two days later, another inebriated homeless man, who has a pacemaker, climbs the fence. He dies instantly as a result of the mild electric shock. His family sues the Inn.

1. Ignoring any municipal codes and statutes that may exist, based on the information you have reviewed in Katko v. Briney, the Coase theorem concerning negligence, and your common sense, what are the policy arguments for and against tort liability in this case? The case brings into perspective the eagerness of litigants to sue for damages even when they are in the wrong. The wire mesh erected around the swimming pool differs greatly from the trap in Katko v. Briney. This is because while the trap in the former was hidden and caused damage to an unsuspecting trespasser, a wire mesh is clearly visible and when one climbs it, they do so at their own risk. The death occurred due to the man’s intoxication and not negligence on the side of the hotel. If the man had not been inebriated he would certainly have survived. As such, his death is a result of his cause and should not be blamed on anyone else.

The mild shock could not also under normal circumstances have caused death to the homeless man. His inebriation must have largely contributed to his death as a rationally thinking man would have immediately let go of the wire. His death must also be viewed as of his own causing and hence no one else should carry the responsibility.
When arguing about liability, it is important to consider the alternative to fencing the pool. Failure to safeguard the swimming pool grounds from intruders caused serious health problems for children. The hotel has been trying to keep out intruders to safeguard the health of children. The children’s health must be taken to supersede the interests of the intruders.

It can however be argued that the hotel used deadly force on the intruders by putting up the electric fence. This is because based on previous experience, the hotel ought to have realized that intoxicated intruders may attempt to climb over the electric wire and due to their state hold on to the wire posing a risk to their life.
The Coase theorem states that if and when conflicts on property rights appear, a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached where the negotiations are costless. In this case, it is impossible to reach such an agreement since the hotel would not in good faith compensate the intruders’ families.

2. What do you think the best solution would be and why?
The solution would be to employ live watchmen to man the swimming pool area who can ensure that the homeless people neither spoil the water in the pools nor cause harm to themselves. While this may be expensive it remains the only way that can temporarily be safest. Read More