Darby v. Societe des Hotels Meridien, 97 N.Y.2d 343 (2002)

An innkeeper generally does not have a duty to warn guests of dangerous conditions on off-premises property that the innkeeper does not own or control, even if the innkeeper encourages use of the property.

Summary

This case addresses the extent of an innkeeper’s duty of care to its guests, specifically concerning dangers existing off the innkeeper’s premises. The New York Court of Appeals held that a hotel in Rio de Janeiro had no duty to warn its guests of dangerous surf conditions (rip tides) on Copacabana Beach, a public beach across the street from the hotel, even though the hotel promoted the beach and provided amenities to its guests for beach use. The Court reasoned that the hotel did not own, control, or maintain the beach, and imposing such a duty would create unlimited and undefined liability.

Facts

Peter Zeiler, a guest at the Meridien Copacabana Hotel in Rio de Janeiro, drowned while swimming at Copacabana Beach, located across a four-lane highway from the hotel. The hotel marketed its proximity to the beach, encouraged guests to use it, and provided amenities like chairs, umbrellas, towels, and security escorts. The hotel also provided pamphlets warning of sun exposure and crime but not of dangerous surf conditions. The beach was owned and maintained by the Brazilian government, which employed the lifeguards.

Procedural History

Darby, individually and on behalf of Zeiler’s estate, sued Societe des Hotels Meridien in federal district court, alleging negligence for failure to warn of dangerous surf conditions. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the hotel had no duty to warn guests about conditions on the public beach. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the innkeeper’s duty under New York law.

Issue(s)

1. Whether, under New York law and the circumstances of this case, a jury question of negligence is presented when a hotel encourages use of a public beach across the road but fails to warn of rip tides causing injury to a guest.
2. Whether an innkeeper who encourages use of a nearby public beach has a duty to take reasonable care to discover the actual condition of the land under water and warn guests of its dangerous condition.

Holding

1. No, because the hotel did not own, control, or maintain the beach and therefore had no duty to warn of its dangers.
2. No, because a hotel or innkeeper has no duty to discover the condition of the land under water at an off-premises beach, even when it encourages its use.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized that a negligence finding requires the breach of a duty of care. While juries determine if a duty was breached, courts determine if a duty exists. The Court reviewed the historical duties of innkeepers and noted that, while innkeepers have a duty to provide a safe harbor, that duty generally extends to the premises under their control. The Court distinguished the case from Butts v. Kouwenhoven, where the inn had direct control over the waterfront. Here, the beach was off-premises and controlled by the Brazilian government. The Court stated, “Providing these services, however, does not make the hotel the insurer of its guests’ safety at a locale over which it has no control.” The Court was also concerned about creating “unlimited responsibility to warn of all manner of risks and hazards over which innkeepers have no control,” echoing the policy concerns articulated in Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781 (1976). The court explicitly stated, “This Court has never gone so far as to hold that a hotel owner or innkeeper has a duty to warn guests as to the danger of using an off-premises beach under these circumstances. We decline to impose one.”