Schmidt v. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. & Hotel
850 F. Supp. 2d 663
E.D. Ky.2012Background
- Plaintiff Karen Schmidt slipped on an ice patch at the Holiday Inn Lexington, Kentucky, on January 30, 2009, after arriving for a Gambler’s Anonymous conference.
- Schmidt was directed by a hotel employee to enter via an exterior entrance (Entrance H) and was provided a map and directions to that path.
- Schmidt testified the sidewalk was wet with salt and ice, and she did not realize the ice patch extending from sidewalk to entrance was present when she arrived.
- Schmidt fell after walking from her car to the sidewalk and then toward the ice-covered entrance; she reported the fall to hotel management and later inspected the site.
- Holiday Inn sought summary judgment arguing no duty under open-and-obvious doctrine or McIntosh foreseeability limits; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ice was open and obvious as a matter of law | Schmidt contends the risk was not obviously visible given lighting, distraction, and directed path to an icy entrance. | Holiday Inn argues the ice was open and obvious and the hotel had no duty to warn or fix. | Open-and-obvious issue for jury; not resolved on summary judgment |
| Whether McIntosh foreseight may create a duty despite open and obvious risk | Foreseeability could exist due to distraction and the invited use of a path to the icy entrance. | Open-and-obvious exception and foreseeability do not create liability as a matter of law. | Foreseeability and McIntosh framework require jury determination |
| Whether Holiday Inn's directions to the exterior path created a duty to protect Schmidt | Hotel directed her to the icy entrance, increasing risk that she would encounter the hazard. | No special duty created by instructions; mere direction does not impose a duty to fix every hazard. | Jury must decide if the directions made harm foreseeable and if duty breached |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky River Medical Ctr. v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) (foreseeability and McIntosh framework; duty may exist where danger is foreseeable despite open-and-obvious)
- Green v. PNC Bank, Kentucky, Inc., 30 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. 2000) (open-and-obvious doctrine in natural outdoor hazards; factors for jury credibility and perception)
- Schreiner v. Humana, Inc., 625 S.W.2d 580 (Ky. 1981) (fact-specific open-and-obvious analysis; disputes may be for jury)
- Estep v. B.F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust, 843 S.W.2d 911 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992) (conduct of premises owner may create liability if not reasonably done)
- Wallingford v. Kroger Co., 761 S.W.2d 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988) (premises liability; duty to exercise ordinary care when danger foreseeably affects invitees)
- Fatter v. Endicott-Mayflower, LLC, 359 S.W.3d 10 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses McIntosh framework and limits of open-and-obvious exceptions)