Abel v. Oceanic Arcata, LP dba Red Roof Inn

Background

Sherie Abel is quadriplegic and requires the assistance of a caretaker. In early September 2015, Abel and her husband, Steven Keck, stayed at the Red Roof Inn in Arcata, California, which Oceanic Arcata owned at the time. An experienced caretaker, Ms. Huskelhus, accompanied them.

Huskelhus placed Abel in a shower using a Hoyer lift, and Abel remained in the lift during her bath. While Huskelhus adjusted the water and retrieved shampoo, water continued running on Abel. Huskelhus then noticed that Abel’s skin was red and appeared burned. Keck later measured water from the sink at 140 degrees Fahrenheit, although the parties disputed when that measurement was taken. The date of the incident was also disputed.

In an earlier partial-summary-judgment order, the court determined that Abel was disabled, the Red Roof Inn was a public accommodation, Oceanic Arcata failed to comply with accessibility standard ADAAG 607.6, that failure violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Abel encountered water emitted from a water heater whose temperature settings violated ADAAG 607.6 and, in turn, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court stated that whether Abel encountered water above 120 degrees Fahrenheit remained to be proven at trial.

Oceanic Arcata’s Motion

Oceanic Arcata sought summary judgment—a ruling without a trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists—on Abel’s second, third, and fifth causes of action: claims under the California Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and for personal premises liability. It argued that Abel could not prove she encountered water above 120 degrees Fahrenheit. As to the premises-liability claim, Oceanic Arcata also argued that Abel could not prove water above 120 degrees caused her injury.

Oceanic Arcata separately sought summary judgment limiting damages to September 2015, arguing that Abel had not provided evidence of medical treatment after that month.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that material factual disputes prevented summary judgment on whether Abel encountered water above 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Evidence that Huskelhus used the same shower without noticing a problem did not establish what temperature Abel encountered. The fact that Huskelhus did not try to wash parts of Abel’s body covered by the Hoyer lift also did not resolve whether shower water contacted those areas.

The court considered evidence that Abel suffered first- and second-degree burns. Those burns can occur at temperatures both above and below 120 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on how long the exposure lasts. Oceanic Arcata argued that the burns showed the water ran on Abel for more than a few seconds and that water above 120 degrees would have caused more severe burns. But the court found a factual conflict because the evidence did not establish how long the water ran while Huskelhus retrieved the shampoo, and Abel and Huskelhus testified that the shampoo was nearby. That testimony conflicted with the fire-department report and Oceanic Arcata’s theory.

The court also declined to grant summary judgment on damages. Abel stated that she had provided Oceanic Arcata with detailed information supporting medical damages incurred over several years, including dates, appointments, and specific dollar amounts. Oceanic Arcata’s counsel confirmed receiving that information at the hearing. Based on that representation, the court did not grant Oceanic Arcata’s request concerning damages.

Disposition

The court denied Oceanic Arcata’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Judge Susan Illston signed the order on November 12, 2019.