Lady dies after falling while sliding down a bannister; family wants to sue the hotel

shampoosuicide · 25-07-2012 09:20PM

finding it difficult to visualise a four-floor drop from a bannister. then again i haven't been in many hotels

Adyx · 25-07-2012 09:21PM

wyndhurst wrote: »

In the US, most States have clear laws (known as Dram Shop laws) that govern the sale of alcohol in bars. The establishment clearly broke the law and did not maintain their responsibility towards the safety of their patron by serving her alcohol when already intoxicated.

I know I will get slated for this....but, we in Ireland have a perverse view of alcohol consumption that colours even our view of this tragic case.

I'll start with slating if that's okay? The hotel did not clearly break the law - nowhere in that report does it say she was served whilst already intoxicated or anyone else for that matter. If they did clearly break the law, why is no one being charged over the matter? A lawsuit is a civil matter not criminal. Finally maybe you have a perverse view of alcohol, please don't presume to speak for me. I can take responsibility for my own actions whether I've consumed alcohol or not.

shampoosuicide · 25-07-2012 09:24PM

wyndhurst wrote: »

In the US, most States have clear laws (known as Dram Shop laws) that govern the sale of alcohol in bars. The establishment clearly broke the law and did not maintain their responsibility towards the safety of their patron by serving her alcohol when already intoxicated.

I know I will get slated for this....but, we in Ireland have a perverse view of alcohol consumption that colours even our view of this tragic case.

police said that alcohol wasn't a factor, also she had reportedly only been in the hotel for half an hour when the accident happened.

wyndhurst · 25-07-2012 09:34PM

Adyx wrote: »

I'll start with slating if that's okay? The hotel did not clearly break the law - nowhere in that report does it say she was served whilst already intoxicated or anyone else for that matter. If they did clearly break the law, why is no one being charged over the matter? A lawsuit is a civil matter not criminal. Finally maybe you have a perverse view of alcohol, please don't presume to speak for me. I can take responsibility for my own actions whether I've consumed alcohol or not.

Your having a laugh right?
Nobody from Waterford takes responsibility for their own actions...that why its such a **** hole :P

cooperguy · 25-07-2012 09:59PM

wyndhurst wrote: »

In the US, most States have clear laws (known as Dram Shop laws) that govern the sale of alcohol in bars. The establishment clearly broke the law and did not maintain their responsibility towards the safety of their patron by serving her alcohol when already intoxicated.

I know I will get slated for this....but, we in Ireland have a perverse view of alcohol consumption that colours even our view of this tragic case.

If you choose to drink too much and then choose to do something stupid then its your fault and your responsibility not anybody elses. Nothing to do with the "coloured" view Irish have of alcohol

Happyman42 · 25-07-2012 10:50PM

A quick google of the 'less sensationalist' press will tell you that
1. Alcohol was not a factor in her death according to both the medical examiner and the Police.
2. There is an issue with the safety of the stairs. Party goers where not warned of their dangerous condition.

Where it my daughter I would want answers and somebody to pay for a needless death.

nervous_twitch · 25-07-2012 11:04PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

A quick google of the 'less sensationalist' press will tell you that
1. Alcohol was not a factor in her death according to both the medical examiner and the Police.
2. There is an issue with the safety of the stairs. Party goers where not warned of their dangerous condition.

Where it my daughter I would want answers and somebody to pay for a needless death.

Bullsh*t. If your daughter was flying down the bannister of a dangerous staircase, then it's entirely her fault. Jesus, I can't believe it's come down to this; no-one is responsible for looking after you, or protecting your life, especially as an adult. Some common cop on and you'd be OK.

homerjay2005 · 25-07-2012 11:12PM

the sad thing is that they will probably win

Happyman42 · 25-07-2012 11:18PM

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Bullsh*t. If your daughter was flying down the bannister of a dangerous staircase, then it's entirely her fault. Jesus, I can't believe it's come down to this; no-one is responsible for looking after you, or protecting your life, especially as an adult. Some common cop on and you'd be OK.

So she was 'flying' down it now? :rolleyes:
She paid the ultimate price for doing something that is usually trivial and most people have done similarly trivial things. The court case is to find out if the hotel where negligent and if the stairs was dangerous, if they weren't, so be it. If they where and it was dangerous, then that is what insurance is for...to compensate those affected by the negilgence.

Tombi! · 25-07-2012 11:20PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

So she was 'flying' down it now? :rolleyes:
She paid the ultimate price for doing something that is usually trivial and most people have done similarly trivial things. The court case is to find out if the hotel where negligent and if the stairs was dangerous, if they weren't, so be it. If they where and it was dangerous, then that is what insurance is for...to compensate those affected by the negilgence.

You walk up and down stairs.
You do not slide down a banister.

Yes, worst case scenario but the hotel was never at fault.

Now if the girl was walking on the stairs and slipped, sure, that's different.

But to be stupid enough to slide down a bannister that is 4 stories above ground level, drunk or not is a very stupid thing to do.

Happyman42 · 25-07-2012 11:30PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

But to be stupid enough to slide down a bannister that is 4 stories above ground level, drunk or not is a very stupid thing to do.

May well be, but the fact is, if the stairs were dangerous then the hotel is liable. Most accidents happen because of somebody doing something stupid. Stairs are designed (riser heights, tread depths, landings, bannisters, even the widths between railings, have to be within certain tolerances etc) and covered by building regulations to cover many scenarios. If for instance the bannister gave way because it wasn't properly installed or maintained, then the hotel take the blame and rightly so. In fact, I thought that it should have been impossible to fall that distance down a stairwell but I can't find the relevant documentation.
But that is not really the point, the point is, the accident didn't happen because she was raving drunk, it happened because the parents claim the hotel where negiglent, they have every right to prosecute that claim.

The Big Red Button · 25-07-2012 11:38PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

May well be, but the fact is, if the stairs were dangerous then the hotel is liable. Most accidents happen because of somebody doing something stupid. Stairs are designed (riser heights, tread depths, landings, bannisters, even the widths between railings, have to be within certain tolerances etc) and covered by building regulations to cover many scenarios. If for instance the bannister gave way because it wasn't properly installed or maintained, then the hotel take the blame and rightly so.

The bannister wouldn't have given way if she hadn't been sliding down it! They're not designed to put up with that sort of weight.

She was a grown woman, and apparently was even sober at the time ... attempting to slide down a bannister with an obvious four-floor drop was stupid and suicidal.

Happyman42 wrote: »

the point is, the accident didn't happen because she was raving drunk, it happened because the parents claim the hotel where negiglent

Well ... that's the strangest logic I've ever heard!

Tombi! · 25-07-2012 11:38PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

May well be, but the fact is, if the stairs were dangerous then the hotel is liable. Most accidents happen because of somebody doing something stupid. Stairs are designed (riser heights, tread depths, landings, bannisters, even the widths between railings, have to be within certain tolerances etc) and covered by building regulations to cover many scenarios. If for instance the bannister gave way because it wasn't properly installed or maintained, then the hotel take the blame and rightly so. In fact, I thought that it should have been impossible to fall that distance down a stairwell but I can't find the relevant documentation.
But that is not really the point, the point is, the accident didn't happen because she was raving drunk, it happened because the parents claim the hotel where negiglent, they have every right to prosecute that claim.

She was 23 years old. Hotels do not expect idiots to slide down the bannisters. The accident happened because she was stupid.

The hotel cannot babysit everyone that stays. It's not up to them to make sure an adult is aware of how to descend stairs like a normal person.

Tails142 · 25-07-2012 11:44PM

What is the point of stair wells that have open centres anyway, allowing you to fall to your death?

I know they're everywhere, but don't see the point

Fr_Dougal · 25-07-2012 11:47PM

Thought thread title said "Lady Gaga dies".

I am disappoint.

shampoosuicide · 25-07-2012 11:49PM

Tails142 wrote: »

What is the point of stair wells that have open centres anyway, allowing you to fall to your death?

I know they're everywhere, but don't see the point

you could say the same thing about elevators/stairwells in shopping centres, eg stephens green. the point is that you don't expect people to be idiots

Tails142 · 25-07-2012 11:53PM

What is the point of stair wells that have open centres anyway, allowing you to fall to your death...

As an example there is one at work that's a fire exit to the side, serves no visual or aesthetic purpose, just more dangerous

Happyman42 · 25-07-2012 11:53PM

chatterpillar wrote: »

The bannister wouldn't have given way if she hadn't been sliding down it! They're not designed to put up with that sort of weight.

The bannisters have to be designed to take the weights, thats the point of them. The rails of a bannister have to at a precise distance, any idea why?
It's to stop the head of a child passing through them, which is NOT the normal use of a stairs but you have to allow for it happening as you have to allow for a whole raft of different scenarios when building and maintaining public spaces. You have to allow for all sorts of stupid things.

She was a grown woman, and apparently was even sober at the time ... attempting to slide down a bannister with an obvious four-floor drop was stupid and suicidal.

Yes it is. That doesn't release the hotel from their duties though.

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

She was 23 years old. Hotels do not expect idiots to slide down the bannisters. The accident happened because she was stupid.

Hotels don't expect people to hang out of windows either but they take precautions to insure windows don't open far enough to allow you to do it.

The hotel cannot babysit everyone that stays. It's not up to them to make sure an adult is aware of how to descend stairs like a normal person.

It's up to them to ensure the hotel is safe. If the bannisters gave way under the tolerances, they will be liable. The insurer will walk away if the stairs was not up to standard.

ComfyKnickers · 25-07-2012 11:56PM

humbert wrote: »

ComfyKnickers wrote: »

This woman was 23 and a teacher so she's was mature and had a brain.

I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion on both counts.

Ha ha ok well I'll re-phrase it so. You'd think she'd have more cop on! :-)

Tombi! · 26-07-2012 12:00AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Hotels don't expect people to hang out of windows either but they take precautions to insure windows don't open far enough to allow you to do it.
It's up to them to ensure the hotel is safe. If the bannisters gave way under the tolerances, they will be liable. The insurer will walk away if the stairs was not up to standard.

So you feel that the hotel should cover every "stupid" thing a person can do that could lead to their death?

Regardless of if the stairs were in horrible condition or not, sliding down them is a fault of the person and not the hotel.

Giselle · 26-07-2012 12:08AM

humbert wrote: »

I guess you'd have to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume grief has caused ordinarily decent people to go looking for someone else to blame.

Of course the organisers aren't at fault.

I think this is the most likely, they're lashing out in their grief. They don't want to acknowledge it was their daughters own lack of sense that led to her death, its a part of being human and being heartbroken to see things skewed, with the deceased seen in the best possible light.

Hoping they lose every cent on legal costs, as well as their daughter is more than a bit mean-spirited tbh.

Happyman42 · 26-07-2012 12:09AM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So you feel that the hotel should cover every "stupid" thing a person can do that could lead to their death?

Regardless of if the stairs were in horrible condition or not, sliding down them is a fault of the person and not the hotel.

Sliding down a bannister should not result in your death, leaning against it should not cause your death.
If the contributory factor that caused the fall was a 'not fit for pupose bannister' (and it will be examined to see what loads it could take) then they are liable.

Helix · 26-07-2012 12:11AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sliding down a bannister should not result in your death, leaning against it should not cause your death.
If the contributory factor that caused the fall was a 'not fit for pupose bannister' (and it will be examined to see what loads it could take) then they are liable.

the purpose of banisters is not to slide down them

assuming the banister didn't tear out of the fixings, and she simply fell over the thing because she was on top of it, it'd be hard to make a not fit for purpose accusation stick

Happyman42 · 26-07-2012 12:20AM

Helix wrote: »

the purpose of banisters is not to slide down them

And the purpose of stair rails is not to stick your head through them, but they are strictly regulated to be a certain distance apart to stop that happening. The same goes for banisters, they have to be designed to take certain loads.

assuming the banister didn't tear out of the fixings, and she simply fell over the thing because she was on top of it, it'd be hard to make a not fit for purpose accusation stick

That is true. They would have no case if the stairs where within tolerances and properly maintained.

Tombi! · 26-07-2012 12:30AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sliding down a bannister should not result in your death, leaning against it should not cause your death.
If the contributory factor that caused the fall was a 'not fit for pupose bannister' (and it will be examined to see what loads it could take) then they are liable.

I sincerly hope you're not serious.

How can you think someone being stupid and behaving like a child is the fault of the hotel?

mikemac1 · 26-07-2012 12:37AM

Big company = big target

This is owned by the Hilton group, if this was a small family run hotel then no lawyer would be bothered and they wouldn't even try

But they see Hilton group and it's potential $$$

Happyman42 · 26-07-2012 12:38AM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I sincerly hope you're not serious.

How can you think someone being stupid and behaving like a child is the fault of the hotel?

Her behaviour is not the fault of the hotel, nobody is saying that.
If her fall was a result of the hotels stairs not being fit for purpose then they are negligent.
If somebody atempts to set fire to the drapes, the hotel aren't responsible for that person's behaviour either but if the drapes aren't fireproof, then the hotel is liable for the burns, because the drapes should be fireproofed.
These are regulations that insure that we all are protected in public spaces.

Helix · 26-07-2012 12:39AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

And the purpose of stair rails is not to stick your head through them, but they are strictly regulated to be a certain distance apart to stop that happening. The same goes for banisters, they have to be designed to take certain loads.

That is true. They would have no case if the stairs where within tolerances and properly maintained.

there's nothing at all in the story to suggest the banisters were damaged. simply that the girl tried to slide down them and fell to her death

Tombi! · 26-07-2012 12:44AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Her behaviour is not the fault of the hotel, nobody is saying that.
If her fall was a result of the hotels stairs not being fit for purpose then they are negligent.
If somebody atempts to set fire to the drapes, the hotel aren't responsible for that person's behaviour either but if the drapes aren't fireproof, then the hotel is liable for the burns, because the drapes should be fireproofed.
These are regulations that insure that we all are protected in public spaces.

Fit for purpose does not include "idiots sliding down stairs".
The stairs shouldn't be made to hold the weight of someone that's sliding down the,.

Happyman42 · 26-07-2012 12:46AM

Helix wrote: »

there's nothing at all in the story to suggest the banisters were damaged. simply that the girl tried to slide down them and fell to her death

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-family-of-woman-who-fell-to-her-death-at-palmer-house-halloween-party-file-suit-20120725,0,568124.story

The parents of a young woman who fell four stories to her death at the Palmer House Hilton have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit alleging the hotel and promoters of a Halloween party did not take enough security measures during the event almost two years ago.
In the suit filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court, James and Deborah Duskey alleged the hotel and Surreal Chicago and Adrenaline Y2K, the event promoters, failed to warn their daughter, Megan, of the dangerous conditions of a stairwell during the Haunted Hotel Ball on Oct. 30, 2010.
Megan Duskey, 23, fell to her death while trying to slide down a railing shortly after arriving at the event with friends, the Cook County medical examiner's office and friends said at the time. She died instantly from head trauma.
Alcohol was not a factor in the incident, according to the medical examiner and police.
According to a 2010 Chicago Tribune story, Duskey, a Chicago schoolteacher, and several girlfriends she had known most of her life had got tickets to the sold-out Haunted Hotel Ball at the Palmer House Hilton, and Duskey was going as glamorous superhero Silk Spectre from the movie "Watchmen."
The suit contended that the hotel and party promoters should have kept her from the stairwell area.

Lady dies after falling while sliding down a bannister; family wants to sue the hotel

Comments