A second instance court in Zárate-Campana’s jurisdiction overturned an earlier ruling and ordered this A hotel accommodation must compensate a guest for injuries sustained in its facilitiesafter examining the objective responsibility of the institution for the lack of adequate security conditions.
According to the decision, the case involved a 51-year-old man who, after staying at a hotel in the city of Campana, reported that he fell in his assigned room and sustained a serious hip injury. As a result of this episode, the individual underwent surgery and suffered a permanent disability that affected his work performance.
The incident is said to have occurred in July 2018 when the man entered the room with a female companion. At about 2 a.m., while showering, after finishing the bath and leaving the adjacent area, He slipped in an area where there were no anti-slip devices or railingswhich resulted in a serious fall on his right thigh. Medical reports included in the file confirmed that he was treated at the scene by emergency responders, given medication and then taken to the city hospital, where initial X-rays did not confirm a fracture.
The man’s situation worsened days later when he was admitted to another health center Doctors diagnosed a fracture of the right hip and prescribed the need for a total joint replacement, a procedure performed in November 2018.
The civil lawsuit filed by the injured party was directed against the owner of the hotel and its insurer for failure to comply with the safety standards required in consumer relationships. The plaintiff claimed that, given the obvious consumer status, the application of objective liability provided for by the law was appropriate and that the proof due to the dynamic load must be provided by the service provider.
At first instance, the court of origin rejected the claim on the grounds that the existence of the fall or fracture had not been proven and that the man had not provided any eyewitnesses. He based his decision on the general rules of the Rules of Procedure, considering that the main element to hold the institution responsible was missing, and concluded that the plaintiff had been injured before his admission or was solely responsible for the incident.
The victim appealed the verdictwith the reference that neither the principles governing consumer contracts nor the special regulations on the supplier’s obligation to provide security would be applied. He questioned the reversal of the burden of proof, arguing that the possibility of providing elements such as surveillance cameras or witnesses would be more accessible to the company, which is also legally required to help clarify the matter.
At the appeal stage, new expert evidence was included, including medical records from the intervening medical centers and assessments by traumatology and forensic medicine experts. The report revealed that the actor had suffered a fracture of the right femoral neck and had undergone total hip arthroplasty, establishing a link between the reported accident and the physical consequences suffered.
In addition, the technical investigation carried out at the scene of the accident described the presence of smooth floors in the shower and landing, as well as the absence of anti-slip tapes and railings, which from a technical point of view represents a foreseeable and avoidable risk. The assessment concluded that the sector did not comply with the prevention standards required by building and safety regulations.
The Court of Appeal held that a consumer relationship was established and that it was appropriate to apply the legislation for the protection of the end consumer, which imposes on the supplier a security obligation with regard to the health and integrity of the consumer. The judgment emphasized that “the service provider must ensure that it does not create foreseeable risks for users” and that liability is objective.
The judgment highlighted several failures by the hotel in relation to evidence cooperation and emphasized that, based on the Consumer Protection Act, it is for the provider to justify the existence of a defense exempting it from liability for damages. The court emphasized that the defendant did not present any evidence during the trial that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by other circumstances or before the admission.
According to the decision, the testimony of a witness who helped the man after the accident was credible and consistent with the medical image presented, which included a sequel partial and permanent physical disability of 32% directly linked to the event. The presence of expenses for the purchase of prostheses, medical care, rehabilitation and transportation was also recognized, although the actor could not provide evidence of all expenses.
In addition, the court considered that the victim’s professional activity, which focused on the repair of cooling systems, required physical exertion and demanding postures, which exacerbated the impact of the injury sustained on his living conditions and work opportunities.
Among the various recognized concepts, the Board established compensation for consequential and therapeutic damages, future damages related to the possibility of replacing the prosthesis, permanent disability, moral damages and lost profits. The total number of approved items was updated and reached 58 million pesos.
In the analysis of moral damage, the resolution highlighted that the hip injury, the operation and the period of immobility caused profound changes in the actor’s state of mind and autonomy, which included fear, pain and work frustration. Testimony supported this assessment by describing difficulty getting around and being dependent on family for months.
The category of psychological impairment was excluded by the expert opinion, which found neither evidence of psychological pathology nor recommended treatment. The court stated that the emotional impact cited by the actor was already included in the assessment of moral damage.
Regarding the loss of profits, the judgment took into account the actor’s inability to carry out his activity during a recovery period estimated at five months and weighed the alleged income from his profession, supported by witnesses at work.
With regard to the request for punitive damages, the Board held that although there was a negligent failure to comply with security conditions, there was no intentional, repeated action or systematic abusive policy on the part of the hotel; Reasons that exclude the application of an additional fine to traditional compensation.
The Court also stated that the interest must be calculated in accordance with the doctrine established by the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires, using a pure annual interest rate of 6% from the date of the event and, at the time of the judgment, the digital passive interest rate of the Bank of the Province of Buenos Aires.
In both instances, the costs (expenses) of the proceedings were borne by the defendant and its insurer in accordance with the rules of procedure.
The Court of Appeal thus overturned the original judgment, upheld the action and ordered the hotel and its insurance company to pay the requested amount, thereby marking a relevant case for the interpretation of strict liability and security obligations in the context of hotel services.
About The Author
