THE HOTEL, IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM FAMILY MEMBERS, ASSUMED A DUTY TO CHECK ON A GUEST WHO HAD THREATENED SUICIDE; THE HOTEL FULFILLED THAT DUTY; THE HOTEL, HOWEVER, DID NOT ASSUME A DUTY TO IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE; THE HOTEL WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE GUEST’S SUICIDE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the defendant hotel, after a request from a guest’s family, had assumed a duty to check on the guest who had threatened suicide in text messages to family members. The hotel fulfilled the assumed duty to check on the guest. However the hotel did not assume a duty to immediately call for emergency assistance after a subsequent request from the family. The hotel, sometime after the family’s request, did procure emergency assistance. The guest was on the window ledge when police officers entered his room. He jumped from the ledge:

Plaintiffs concede that defendants did not have an underlying legal duty to prevent decedent, a hotel guest, from taking his own life. It is undisputed that defendants, as the owner and operator of the premises, are not insurers of a visitor’s safety. Rather, plaintiffs’ theory of liability is one of assumed duty. “[E]ven when no original duty is owed to the plaintiff to undertake affirmative action, once it is voluntarily undertaken, it must be performed with due care” … . …

… [T]o be held liable under an assumed duty theory, it is not enough that defendants undertook to perform a service and did so negligently, but their “conduct in undertaking the service [must have] somehow placed [decedent] in a more vulnerable position than he would have been in had [defendants] never taken any action at all” … . * * *

Recognizing an assumed duty in these circumstances would create a specter of liability that discourages rather than encourages hotels from offering assistance to guests contemplating suicide. Because hotels owe no inherent duty to provide such aid, the most rational and likely way for them to avoid liability would be to implement formal policies against their employees involving themselves in efforts to render potentially life-saving aid to guests. In keeping with the State’s “interest[] in preserving life and preventing suicide” … , the better rule is one that incentivizes both hotels and concerned parties to do all they reasonably can in these difficult and emotionally charged situations. Beadell v Eros Mgt. Realty LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00962, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an explanation of the circumstances under which a party which does not ordinarily owe a duty of care to another party can “assume” a duty of care in response to a request.