Stephens v. Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
150 Haw. 589
| Haw. App. | 2022Background
- While staying at the Fairmont Kea Lani on Maui, Stephens asked an unidentified hotel employee for a recommendation; the employee suggested Makena's Big Beach, about three miles from the hotel, and gave driving directions.
- At Big Beach multiple shorebreak warning signs and lifeguard PA announcements were posted on the day of injury; Stephens later admitted there were plenty of warnings but claimed he did not see or hear them.
- Stephens entered the water, was struck by a breaking wave, and suffered catastrophic paralysis. The ocean-safety log recorded the injury time.
- Stephens sued Fairmont, alleging negligent recommendation without warning of ocean hazards. Fairmont moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty to warn of an off-premises beach and that posted warnings at Big Beach complied with HRS § 663-1.56.
- The Circuit Court granted Fairmont’s motion, holding Fairmont had no duty to warn of dangers miles off its premises, any assumed undertaking was not shown, and posted warnings at Big Beach precluded liability.
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, addressing evidentiary issues and multiple legal theories of duty raised by Stephens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility and legal effect of hotel deposition excerpts and internal policy | Stephens argued hotel failed to follow its policy when advising guests, supporting breach | Fairmont argued the summarized deposition excerpts were unauthenticated and inadmissible, and internal policy alone creates no legal duty | Excerpts were inadmissible for summary judgment; an internal policy does not create a legal duty |
| Common-law duty to warn based on Tarshis | Stephens urged Tarshis establishes a hotel duty to warn guests of dangerous ocean conditions | Fairmont argued Tarshis applies to beaches fronting the hotel and does not extend to beaches miles away | Tarshis does not support extending a beachfront-hotel duty to a beach located over three miles away |
| Special-relationship duty under Restatement § 314A (innkeeper duty) | Stephens claimed innkeeper duty to protect guests from unreasonable risks | Fairmont asserted § 314A applies to risks on or about the innkeeper’s premises, not off-premises locations | § 314A did not apply because the injury occurred away from the hotel premises |
| Voluntary-assumption duty under Restatement § 323 (Good Samaritan) | Stephens argued Fairmont assumed a duty by recommending a beach | Fairmont argued giving a recommendation is not undertaking a protective service and there was no evidence staff had that role | § 323 did not apply; mere recommendation is not an undertaking to render protective services |
| Foreseeability/off-premises duty (Rygg) | Stephens argued foreseeability of guests going to nearby beaches can create duty even if off-premises | Fairmont contended Big Beach was not in or about the hotel and not shown to be foreseeable | No evidence Big Beach was ‘‘in or about’’ the premises; Rygg does not compel duty here |
| HRCP Rule 56(d) procedure | Stephens claimed court failed to ascertain material facts per Rule 56(d) | Fairmont argued Rule 56(d) governs partial dispositions and trial preparedness, not full-adjudication MSJs | Rule 56(d) inapplicable because summary judgment disposed of all claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarshis v. Lahaina Inv. Corp., 480 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1973) (hotel may owe duty to warn of dangerous ocean conditions fronting its property)
- Rygg v. County of Maui, 98 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Haw. 1999) (duty to warn may extend to places in or about hotel premises where it is foreseeable guests will go)
- Bidar v. Amfac, Inc., 669 P.2d 154 (Haw. 1983) (existence of duty is a question of law for the court)
- Gibo v. City & County of Honolulu, 459 P.2d 198 (Haw. 1969) (landowner duty is to use reasonable care for safety of persons reasonably anticipated on premises)