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

Guest dies suddenly after drinking, is the hotel liable?

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

A guest unfortunately died suddenly while staying at a hotel. The family demanded compensation from the hotel. Does the hotel need to bear liability for compensation? Recently, the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court) concluded a case of a dispute over the right to life. The final second-instance judgment ruled that the hotel involved had fulfilled its reasonable security obligations, had no fault in the guest's death, and did not need to bear compensation liability.

Case Review

One day in February 2023, Mr. Wang arrived at a hotel to check in. Surveillance footage showed that he was in normal mental and physical condition 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 PM on the third day, the hotel manager Xiao Guang noticed that Mr. Wang's room had expired but he had not checked out. Xiao Guang went to the room to ask if Mr. Wang needed to extend his stay. After knocking multiple times with no response, Xiao Guang used the manager's key card to open the door. Upon entering, he found Mr. Wang lying motionless on the bed and immediately called the police and 120 emergency services. Later, the community health service center confirmed that Mr. Wang had 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 in serious physical discomfort or unfit for solo occupancy, and after noticing his discomfort, it asked if he needed medical attention, thereby fulfilling its necessary safety obligations. Although the hotel did not directly cause Mr. Wang's sudden death through any tortious act, it failed to contact Mr. Wang before the publicly posted checkout time of 12:00 PM to inquire about extending his stay, which could have allowed earlier detection of his abnormal condition. This may have delayed timely medical intervention, meaning the hotel did not fully meet its safety assurance obligations as a hotel operator, and thus should bear certain tort liability.

Therefore, the court of first instance, considering Mr. Wang's health condition at check-in and the degree of correlation between the hotel's actions and his sudden death, determined that the hotel should bear 10% of the tort liability for compensation 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 checkout services, so the published 12:00 checkout time cannot be used as the standard for determining whether the hotel fulfilled its safety guarantee obligations. Mr. Wang's family argued that the hotel, knowing his health condition, still neglected to take action and failed to fulfill its adequate safety guarantee obligations, and thus should bear corresponding responsibility.

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 at check-in, the hotel staff's inquiry when they noticed his discomfort the day before the incident, and the hotel's immediate measures of calling the police and dialing 120 after the incident, these actions demonstrated that the hotel had met the reasonable standard of care of a prudent manager, complied with specific industry standards for hotels, and fulfilled its safety guarantee obligations within a reasonable scope. Furthermore, the hotel could not be expected to be constantly aware of Mr. Wang's specific health condition in his room, as monitoring the health status of every guest in their rooms is neither a legal nor a contractual obligation of the hotel.

Regarding the hotel's announced checkout time of 12:00 PM, late checkout is a common practice in the hotel industry and a humane measure for customer service. Based on the established facts, Mr. Wang died suddenly in his room. Considering the cause and time of his death, there is no direct causal relationship between late checkout and Mr. Wang's death. Therefore, the hotel's visit to the room around 1:50 PM to ask if Mr. Wang needed to extend his stay did not constitute fault, nor did it violate the duty of 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.

If harm is caused to others by the actions of a third party, the third party shall bear tort liability; if the operator, manager, or organizer fails to fulfill their security obligations, they shall bear corresponding supplementary liability. After bearing supplementary liability, the operator, manager, or organizer may seek recourse 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.