McNeilly v. Greenbrier Hotel Corp.
16 F. Supp. 3d 733
S.D.W. Va2014Background
- Scarlett McNeilly (pro se) sued Greenbrier Hotel Corp. for negligence arising from an August 23, 2010 shower/bathtub fall; other claims/defendants were dismissed earlier.
- McNeilly alleges she slipped in the tub, fell out onto the marble floor, and hit her head; she reports no bathmat was provided, the grab bar was slippery, and she observed cleaning-residue in the tub after returning from the ER.
- Housekeeping records show pre-arrival inspections but the specific room attendant who cleaned her room is unidentified; former housekeeping supervisor alleged changes in 2010 (removal of routine tub maintenance, cheaper chemicals, stopping rubber mats).
- Competing expert evidence: defendant’s expert measured a textured anti-slip surface meeting industry friction standards; plaintiff’s expert observed anti-slip etching worn and limited to an area 6–8 inches from the drain (leaving unprotected area where plaintiff stepped).
- Prior incident reports show some previous slips in bathrooms/tile at the hotel; parties dispute foreseeability, adequacy of anti-slip features, and whether cleaning residue contributed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to provide additional bathroom safety (mats/extended anti-slip, treat grab bar) | Greenbrier owed duty of reasonable care to guests; absence of mat/insufficient anti-slip and slippery grab bar breached that duty | Hotel owed no duty to add features beyond industry measures; any duty to clean was met | Court: Duty exists as general duty of reasonable care; breach is a jury question, not for summary judgment |
| Breach via inadequate cleaning or residue causing slipperiness | McNeilly found residue after fall and alleges improper cleaning practices/supervision that could have caused slipperiness | Defendant says no evidence that cleaning caused the fall or that unapproved products were used in plaintiff’s room | Court: Evidence is thin but, viewed in plaintiff’s favor, creates genuine dispute for jury about whether residue contributed to fall |
| Sufficiency of anti-slip material and expert disagreement | Plaintiff’s expert says etching worn and left unprotected area where she stepped | Defendant’s expert measured compliant friction where anti-slip inlays exist | Court: Conflicting expert evidence creates material fact issue for jury; compliance with industry standards is not dispositive |
| Foreseeability and prior incidents (predictability of slips) | Prior accident reports and worn anti-slip indicate slips were foreseeable | Defendant points to limited prior slips and disputes relevance | Court: Foreseeability and reasonableness are jury issues; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
- Hersh v. E-T Enterprises, Ltd. P’ship, 232 W.Va. 305 (West Virginia test for duty based on foreseeability; factors for premises liability)
- Mallet v. Pickens, 206 W.Va. 145 (factors for premises liability duty analysis)
- Bradley v. Sugarwood, Inc., 164 W.Va. 151 (negligence questions for jury even if facts are undisputed)
- Jones v. Abner, 335 S.W.3d 471 (Ky. Ct. App. approach finding speculative evidence insufficient in a bathtub-slip case)
- Wotzka v. Minndakota Ltd. Partnership, 831 N.W.2d 722 (N.D. approach allowing jury to decide reasonableness where bathtub safety features absent)