Essay Flashcards

A mid-scale hotel, Grand Aurora Inn, is sued by a guest, Diego Santos, who slips and injures his wrist near the lobby after a storm that caused a water leak from an air-conditioning line. The Inn maintains a due-diligence program: (i) daily rounds by maintenance staff; (ii) a maintenance log documenting hazards and remedial actions; (iii) a protocol to cordon off any obvious wet area and place wet-floor signs within 4 minutes of detection; and (iv) a policy to dry or repair hazards within 24 hours if not immediately remediable. On the day of the incident, a leak formed a visible puddle; a staff member placed a wet-floor sign within 2 minutes; the area was cordoned within 5 minutes; the puddle persisted for 15 minutes before Santos slipped. The Inn pleads the defense of due diligence, arguing that it exercised the care that a reasonably prudent owner would under the circumstances.
(a) Identify the doctrine and the governing rule that applies when a defendant pleads due diligence as a defense in a premises-liability quasi-delict.
(b) Distinguish due diligence from ordinary negligence or other defenses, and explain how it affects the burden of proof and the elements the plaintiff must establish.
(c) Apply the doctrine to the facts: does Grand Aurora Inn’s program and actions satisfy the due-diligence standard under the circumstances? Conclude whether the defense should succeed or whether liability should attach.