First, the story I’m trying to understand.
Now, my question.
Is this a real legal defense?
Well, you got crabs from our hotel. Our employees saw them and we admitted it was nasty. We didn’t charge you for the room. But, there’s nothing that says that our hotel room has to be fit for human habitation, clean and sanitary, or suitable for occupancy.
You gotta be kidding me…
You gotta be kidding ME, though, that he’s trying to get a million bucks for a case of crabs???
I used to work for the Dept of Public Health in Alabama and, yep, I inspected hotel rooms.
If we saw insect in the linens, or hair, the hotel got a bad rating.
Admittedly, it would have to be really REALLY bad to be closed - but I’ve seen it happen.
Is this the Bizarro thread or what? Bugs in the bedsheets not enough to close a place down? Hotels not legally obligated to provide rooms fit for human habitation? $1 mil for pubic lice? I mean, if he had caught herpes from that ‘hotel room,’ that’d be one thing…
I’m keepin a close eye on this one. If he wins even a fraction of what he’s suing for, next time I go on a business trip I’m bringing a batch of the little critters along with me. Do they sell them in pet stores?
Nah. I’d bet you can purchase them from a private vendor, though. They may even add other critters without you needing to ask. 
Me and my beloved parents are going to stay in a hotel when we go down to visit my niece. :eek:
Note to self: Bring rubber underthings.
The mind boggles at the possible entendres from that last posting.
My work here is done!
OK, so here’s how the argument works:
The plaintiff stayed in the hotel room and was injured. The plaintiff sued for compensation.
The plaintiff argued that the hotel breached an implied contract to provide a clean hotel room. The hotel is making the argument that no such contract exists, so the hotel has no duty to provide a clean hotel room. It’s a perfectly sound legal argument to make, and the court will decide whether or not the hotel has a duty under the law of that state and, if it does, whether it breached that duty.
(Note that the article only mentions the contract theory of recovery, but the plaintiff probably through in all kinds of arguments and the defendant responded in a similar vein to the above to all of them).
Imagine if I walk by you on the street and then I sue you for not saying hi and being cordial to me, and I want a million dollars. You’d reply by saying that you have no duty to say hi to me, so you cannot be held responsible for the breach of that duty. This case is exaclty the same as this, except that most people would probably agree that whatever the law is, a hotel should have some duty to provide clean rooms (but people’s feelings don’t matter, the law does).
Man, oh man, oh man… I don’t even know where to start with this one. Hoteliers are required to protect people from things day after day - slip and falls, drownings, foreign items in food, rouge valet attendents (who “parked” cars at a hotel that did not offer valet service). I can’t tell you how many lawsuits I’ve read about against hotels and they pretty much all come down to the “reasonableness test” I have no idea how a hotel could even try to argue that a reasonable person would pay money for a room that they did not believe was inhabitable or “suitable for occupancy” I mean, why else do you rent a hotel room?
I understand the point you are trying to make taxguy but doesn’t the fact that there is consideration and an actual contract vis a vi the registration card, mean that there is some duty on the hotel’s part to provide a place to sleep that is acceptable to the person inhabiting the room?
I too will be watching this case, cuz man, if we as hotels don’t have to provide clean rooms, I just figured out a way to save a ton of labour dollars!!! 
Jane I think you are right but, many find it unwise to stipulate to the plaintiff’s theory of liability in the initial pleadings. There is no doubt in my mind that an implied, if not explicit, contractual relationship existed. We have all the necessary elements of a contract, two competent parties, in agreement over the supply of a legal service or product and finally consideration for such service/product. (Though I guess an argument could be made that since the room was comped no consideration was offered). The central issue here is the exorbitant damage demand. The hotel will certainly pay something to settle this but since plaintiff’s demand is so high the defense has started with a hard line and will likely maintain it until the plaintiff shows signs of making a demand somewhere near reality.
While the above makes great press such unbelievable positions are an everyday responses to plaintiff demands that similarly unbelievable.
Does it matter what shade?
:: d&r ::
The defense attorney in the case is probably right…the number of implied warranties recognized by state law are generally limited in number and scope, and there may not be one that covers “cleanliness and habitability” in hotel rooms, or whatever he said. There may even be specific case law to the contrary, to prevent people from demanding their money back in court because the carpet wasn’t shampooed within the last hour or so.
However, that doesn’t mean that this guy can’t recover under other legal theories. Implied warrenties are just a small piece of the pie: there’s also express warranty, negligence, etc. The defense attorney is probably just attempting to bolster his/her bargaining position to facilitate a settlement.
I’ve been told that a significant portion of the training provided in law school is just the ability to say stuff like this with a straight face.