Suicide jump from roof of hotel

On Feb 8, 5:11 am, "John A. Weeks III" <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> In article <diijs2dqgpv2bteg9kg8qmis3rms282...@4ax.com>,
>  "John Smith" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[OP's teen son killed self by jumping from roof of hotel]

> > I do not want blood money, but I have to do something to stop this.

First of all, condolences to OP on your loss.   This must be a difficult time for your whole family.

> > I also want that manager fired

Bad publicity (or avoidance thereof) may drive the hotel higher-ups to do so, but IMO you as parent of a suicide victim have no legal right to force them to do so.

> > Do they have legal liability in this case where
> > after a number of suicides they have taken no action to close off access to
> > their roof,

That's a great big "maybe".   Rather than taking anyone's word for it in a mere usenet discussion forum, OP, _please_ make an appointment to consult with a local personal injury lawyer.   John Weeks' reply presents one side of the argument, and he may well prove right in the end; but don't give up without even trying.   There have been plenty of successful examples of suits against those who provided the means a suicide used to kill himself, and I can think of at least 2 reasons why the hotel owners may be liable for their unguarded, unprotected roof: the doctrine of "attractive nuisance", and the general tort duty of reasonable care to minimize the danger and.or at least provide warnings in a dangerous *(artificial) location.

* (The duty arises where the landowner _creates_ the nuisance, not where it exists naturally.  There is no duty to put a fence around every natural pond or a railing on every cliff.   But the dangers that the owner/builder should anticipate being created by an artificial improvement to the land are another matter.)

An "attractive nuisance" refers to a dangerous, non-natural location or object that the owner knows (or should know) is likely to attract people with more curiosity than brains -- usually young children -- who will foreseeably get themselves into trouble using that instrumentality unless precautions are taken.   Thus, e.g. if you leave a bulldozer overnight in a field near a shopping center or school, but don't disable it from being operated (e.g. by removing the key, or doing something else if it doesn't have a key) you may be liable to the family of the kid who got hurt when he, or another kid, started it up.   And if you have a drainage pond or, quite commonly, a swimming pool, but fail to put a gated fence around it to prevent young'uns from wandering over and falling in, you can be held liable.  If this hotel roof is widely known in the area as an attraction to youths who go up there to party, the hotel may well be found liable if it failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent falls.

Your lawyer may need to hire an expert to establish the standard of care that a business such as this hotel ought to follow, in regard to edge-of-roof protection and other precautions.   It is quite standard in the industry for e.g. bridges with pedestrian walkways to include fencing that curves back in over the sidewalk to prevent suicides from climbing over and jumping, and railings or parepets should be provided around the edge of the roof extending up to at least a certain height, etc.   These may not prevent a determined suicide but do make it harder, and that may be all the standard of care requires; thus it may prevent _most_ suicides as well as many accidental deaths from falls off an inadequately protected roof.

> >  and can I sign a paper in advance that I want any proceeds from
> > a lawsuit to go to an organization that works to prevent teen suicides?

You ought to talk to the lawyer you hire, about that.   For various legal reasons, including your right to pursue the claim, and tax consequences, it may or may not be a good idea to do that in advance.  Certainly you have a right to give away the money to such a charity AFTER you win a verdict.

> >  What legal liability do they actually have?

Only a jury can decide that, based on all the evidence.   Don't prejudge it; hire a lawyer and take his advice.

> What would the legal liability be for?  Excessive altitude?  While
> your son's death was tragic, a person who is determined to end their
> life is going to find a way to do it.  The building just happened
> to be one method.

Mr. Weeks, let me give you an analogy   Let's say you have a friend who is suicidal, or, like the hotel, you know (based on past jumpers) that suicidally inclined people may frequently come to your place to "do it".   Getting back to the individual with a depressed friend, do you think you have no liability if you say, "here, I've got a Smith & Wesson, why don't you take that and use it?"   Or if you hand him the rope he then uses to hang himself?

It is not illegal to have a gun, or a rope, or a high building.   But it may produce tort liability if you know that someone may use that legal instrumentality to kill himself and you nevertheless make it easy for him  to do it.

Now, there may be a differnce between actively providing the means, and simply failing to place roadblocks in the path of someone who you know wants to access your roof to jump from.  But if the state of knowledge of the defendant is the same, liability _may_ attach to either an action OR an omission where circumstances create a duty to act.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300