Does the hotel bear responsibility for a guest's sudden death after drinking?

If a guest dies suddenly after drinking alcohol, is the hotel liable?

Compiled from: Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People's Court

A hotel guest tragically died suddenly during their stay, and the family demanded compensation from the hotel. Does the hotel need to bear liability for compensation? Recently, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Shanghai First Intermediate Court) concluded a life right dispute case, and in the final second-instance judgment, it was determined that the hotel involved had fulfilled its reasonable duty of safety and security, was not at fault for the guest's death, and did not need to bear liability for compensation.

Case Review

One day in February 2023, Mr. Wang arrived at a hotel to check in. Surveillance footage showed that his mental and physical condition were both normal at the time, and the check-in process went smoothly.

The next day at noon, the hotel manager saw Mr. Wang vomiting near his room door with a smell of alcohol, so he asked if Mr. Wang needed medical attention. Mr. Wang declined.

At 1:50 p.m. on the third day, Xiaoguang, the person in charge of the hotel, discovered that Mr. Wang's room had expired but the check-out procedures had not been completed. Xiaoguang then went to the room to ask Mr. Wang whether he needed to renew the payment. After knocking on the door several times with no response, Xiaoguang opened the door using the administrator key card. Upon entering the room, Xiaoguang found Mr. Wang lying on the bed unresponsive, and immediately called the police and notified the 120 emergency center. Mr. Wang was later confirmed by the community health service center to have died suddenly.

After learning of this tragedy, Mr. Wang's family believed that the hotel had failed to fulfill its duty of adequate safety assurance and should bear responsibility for his death. Consequently, Mr. Wang's family filed a lawsuit against the hotel.

Trial court opinion

The hotel was not aware that Mr. Wang was seriously unwell and unsuitable for staying alone. Moreover, after discovering that Mr. Wang was unwell, the hotel inquired whether he needed medical attention, thereby fulfilling its necessary duty of safety and security. Although the hotel did not commit any direct tortious act causing Mr. Wang’s sudden death, it failed to contact Mr. Wang before the publicly posted check-out time of 12:00 to ask whether he wished to extend his stay, which would have allowed it to discover his abnormal condition at an earlier stage. This may have delayed timely medical treatment for Mr. Wang, meaning the hotel did not fully discharge its duty of safety and security as a business operator. The hotel should bear a certain degree of tortious liability.

Therefore, the court of first instance, taking into account Mr. Wang's health condition upon check-in and the degree of connection between the hotel's conduct and Mr. Wang's sudden death, determined at its discretion that the hotel should bear 10% of tort liability for the reasonable losses of Mr. Wang's family, totaling over 190,000 yuan.

The hotel, dissatisfied with the ruling, appealed to the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court.

Opinion of the Court of Second Instance

The hotel stated that most hotels offer late check-out services, so the publicly posted 12:00 check-out time cannot be used as the standard for determining whether the hotel fulfilled its duty of safety and security. Mr. Wang's family members, however, pointed out that the hotel was aware of Mr. Wang's physical condition yet still left him unattended, failing to fulfill its duty of safety and security adequately, and should therefore bear corresponding liability.

After trial, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court held that the purpose of safety guarantee obligations is to protect others' personal and property safety. An objective evaluation should be made of the safety guarantor's risk prevention and control capabilities, and liability should only arise when the guarantor fails to fulfill these obligations within a reasonable scope.

Based on Mr. Wang’s condition upon check-in, the inquiries made by hotel staff the day before the incident when they noticed Mr. Wang was unwell, and the measures taken by the hotel immediately after the incident, including calling the police and dialing 120, these actions demonstrate that the hotel’s conduct met the reasonable care standard of a good manager, complied with the specific standards of the hotel industry, and fulfilled its duty of safety protection within a reasonable scope. Furthermore, it was impossible for the hotel to know Mr. Wang’s specific physical condition in his room at all times, and monitoring the physical condition of every guest in their rooms is not a statutory or contractual obligation of the hotel.

Regarding the hotel's posted check-out time of before 12:00, offering a late check-out aligns with industry practice and serves as a customer-friendly measure. Based on the established facts, Mr. Wang died suddenly in his room. Considering the cause and time of Mr. Wang's death, there is no direct causal link between the late check-out and his death. Therefore, the hotel's visit to the room at approximately 13:50 to inquire whether Mr. Wang needed to extend his stay does not constitute fault, nor does it amount to a breach of the duty of safety and security.

Ultimately, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court reversed the original judgment on appeal.

[1] Civil Code

Article 1198 [Liability of Security Obligation Holder]

Operators, managers, or organizers of business premises or public places such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports venues, and entertainment venues, as well as organizers of mass activities, who fail to fulfill their security obligations and cause harm to others, shall bear tort liability.

Where harm is caused to another person by the act of a third party, the third party shall bear tort liability; if the operator, manager, or organizer fails to fulfill the safety obligation, it shall bear corresponding supplementary liability. After the operator, manager, or organizer bears supplementary liability, it may seek recovery from the third party.

[4] Author's Opinion

Disputes over breach of security obligations not only involve the protection of the injured party's personal and property rights but also the definition of the security obligations of operators, managers, and organizers and the protection of their rights. Therefore, the scope of security obligations for operators, managers, and organizers should be reasonably defined to achieve a balance between the freedom of action of the security obligation holder and the protection of the victim's rights.

For the party with a security obligation, this duty is not unlimited but should be commensurate with its normal management and control capabilities, preventing improper expansion of its duty of care. Only when it fails to fulfill the security obligation within a reasonable scope should it bear corresponding liability. If operators are excessively required to provide security obligations that clearly exceed existing material foundations and management service levels, it will not only increase business operating costs but also contradict the original legislative intent, hindering the healthy development of the entire industry.