Dear PAO,
My family checked in at XXX Hotel for my seven-year-old son’s birthday. When Edward went to the kiddie pool, he slipped and bumped his head on the kiddie slide, resulting in a bleeding contusion on his head and several bruises on his arm and body. He was then treated at the hotel clinic. However, one month after the incident, Edward began experiencing nausea and had seizures. This required hospitalization and laboratory tests, leading to further expenses. Can the hotel be held liable for damages?
Debbie
Dear Debbie,
Yes, the hotel may be liable for damages for the injuries sustained by Edward and his consequent hospitalization. Under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, whoever by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. The basis for the hotel’s liability is its failure to diligently undertake protective measures to ensure the safety of children.
Under the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine, one who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises. (Karlos Noel R. Aleta v. Sofitel Philippine Plaza Hotel, GR 228150, Jan. 11, 2023, citing Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan, 91 Phil. 488 (1952), Ponente: Associate Justice Mario Victor Leonen)
While the swimming pool alone may not automatically be classified as an attractive nuisance, the fact that kiddie slides were installed therein made it attractive to children. Being an attractive nuisance, the hotel is responsible for maintaining a safe environment in the pool area to protect children from unforeseen danger. The establishment of these safeguards should have prevented the incident. Failure to do so constitutes negligence for which it may be held liable for damages.
In the above-mentioned Aleta case, the high court even applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in conjunction with the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine, holding that “by reason of the swimming pool's nature as an attractive nuisance, respondent is duty bound to guarantee that it had installed sufficient precautionary measures to ensure the safety of its guests, particularly the children. The establishment of these safeguards should have prevented the incident. Accordingly, it could be inferred that petitioner's children would not have sustained their injuries were it not for respondent's negligence.” This created a presumption that the hotel management acted negligently unless it could show that it took sufficient precautionary measures.
Overall, by maintaining an attractive nuisance in the premises, it is incumbent upon the hotel management to ensure that safety features are strictly enforced in its vicinity. Falling short of this responsibility makes them negligent and, therefore, liable for damages.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.