Red v. Four Points By Sheraton New York Downtown Hotel

Background

Theresa Red alleged that she suffered physical injuries on August 18, 2018, when she tripped on a hump in the carpeting on the 26th floor of the Four Points by Sheraton New York Downtown Hotel. At the time, Lam Platt Street Hotel, LLC owned the hotel, and Real Hospitality Group LLC managed it. Red sued the hotel defendants for negligence. Her husband, Gregory Red, asserted a claim for loss of services and consortium and related damages. Red initially also sued Skyteam Corp., the entity that installed the carpeting, but she voluntarily discontinued that direct claim against Skyteam with prejudice.

The hotel defendants brought a third-party claim against Skyteam for contribution and apportionment. They alleged that, if Red’s injury resulted from anything other than her own negligence, Skyteam was negligent in installing the carpet and shared responsibility for the injury.

Hotel Defendants’ Motion

The hotel defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. They argued that Red lacked evidence showing that a dangerous or defective condition existed, that they created it, or that they had actual or constructive notice of it. They also argued that any defect was too trivial to support liability as a matter of law.

Applying New York negligence law, the court explained that Red had to show a duty, a breach of that duty, and injury caused by the breach. In a slip-and-fall case, she also had to provide evidence that a dangerous condition existed and that the defendants either created it or knew, or should have known, about it and failed to correct it within a reasonable time.

The court found enough evidence for a jury to decide these issues. Red testified that, after falling, she felt a hard, uneven hump in the carpet. Peter Levine, a fire safety director and security guard who responded to the incident, testified that Red identified the area where she fell and that he observed a hump approximately two to three inches above the surrounding carpet. Red’s daughter also testified that she saw and felt the hump.

The court further found evidence that the hotel defendants had notice. Levine testified that he had reported a carpet defect to the hotel’s head engineer before the accident and that he noticed the defect during his floor patrols. Although the defendants disputed whether the reported defect was the same one involved in Red’s accident, the court held that this dispute was for a jury to resolve.

The court rejected the argument that the defect was trivial as a matter of law. The evidence placed the hump’s height at approximately one and a half to three inches, and the court noted that the checkerboard carpet design could have made the hump difficult to see. A jury could also find that people walking from their hotel rooms toward the elevators would not reasonably be expected to focus continuously on the carpet beneath them. The court therefore denied the hotel defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Skyteam’s Motion

Skyteam moved for summary judgment on the hotel defendants’ contribution and apportionment claim. It argued that it owed no relevant duty, that the workers who installed the carpet were independent contractors whose conduct could not be attributed to Skyteam, and that there was no evidence that the installation caused a non-trivial defect.

The court explained that a contribution claim requires evidence that the third-party defendant owed a duty to the defendants or to the injured person and that breaching that duty contributed to the injury. The court also discussed an exception under New York law for a contractor that, through negligent performance, creates or increases an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

The court found factual disputes about whether Skyteam negligently selected or supervised the carpet installers and whether the installation caused the hump. Evidence showed that Skyteam used freelance installers, that its manager had little or no information about the experience of some workers, and that Skyteam did not supervise the installation. There was also evidence that the floor had not been uneven before the new carpet was installed, that the carpet was cut again after delivery, and that the new carpet was then installed.

The court held that Skyteam could not avoid summary judgment merely by characterizing the installers as independent contractors. It found possible grounds for liability based on negligent selection and on evidence that the hotel reasonably believed Skyteam employees, rather than undisclosed independent contractors, were performing the installation. Because a jury could find that Skyteam or people for whom it was responsible negligently caused the dangerous condition, the court denied Skyteam’s motion on the contribution claim.

Disposition

The court denied both motions for summary judgment. Skyteam’s motion directed at Red’s direct claim against it was denied as moot because Red had already voluntarily discontinued that claim with prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entries for the motions.