Woman Awarded $2 Million Verdict for Serious Injuries from Double Booked Hotel Room

Defendant Sunrise Real Estate Partners, LLC, a Georgia corporation, operated from 3900 Steve Reynolds Blvd, Norcross, Gwinnett County, Georgia 30093. They owned and managed the Baymont by Wyndham Marietta/Atlanta North Hotel, located at 2170 Delk Rd SE, Marietta, Georgia 30067.

On the evening of October 27, 2021, Plaintiff Gwenija Trice checked into the Hotel based on a reservation she had made. Upon her arrival, the front desk staff assigned her to Room 230 and provided her with a keycard. She then proceeded to her room.

Unbeknownst to her, the Defendants had mistakenly double-booked Room 230, which was already occupied by another guest. When Plaintiff arrived at Room 230, she used her keycard to unlock the door. However, as she pushed the door open, it only moved slightly because the guest inside had secured the interior latch.

The room was dark, leading Plaintiff to believe something obstructed the door. Consequently, she placed her hand between the door and the frame to check for any blockage. Suddenly, without warning, the guest inside slammed the door shut on Plaintiff’s hand, resulting in significant injury.

As a result of her injury, Plaintiff experienced bodily harm, pain, discomfort, emotional distress, and medical expenses exceeding $150,000. She expected to incur further expenses, which would be proven at trial.

The Plaintiff sought monetary damages from the Defendants for several reasons:
a) She claimed compensation for all mental and physical pain she endured after her injury, including during treatment and up to the present.
b) She also sought damages for future mental and physical pain resulting from her injuries and subsequent medical treatment, again to be determined by the jury.
c) The Plaintiff requested compensation for past, present, and future economic losses, including medical bills and expenses linked to her fall. The evidence presented at trial would further clarify these losses.
d) She claimed damages for the loss of enjoyment of life that she suffered and would continue to suffer due to her injuries, with the amount to be assessed by the jury.
e) Finally, Plaintiff requested attorney’s fees and litigation costs under O.C.G.A. Sec. 13-6-11. She argued that Defendants acted stubbornly and in bad faith, causing her unnecessary trouble and expenses.

Plaintiff alleged premises liability and negligence in training and supervising the staff.

Before the incident, she remained unaware that Room 230 had been double-booked, despite exercising ordinary care. The Plaintiff did not know about the danger of the double booking and could not have reasonably discovered it without proper notice.

Defendants knew or should have known through due care, about the dangerous conditions created by the double booking of Room 230. Their failure to warn about this dangerous situation likely led to the injuries Plaintiff sustained.

Defendants demonstrated negligence, which directly caused Plaintiff’s injuries in several ways:
a) They violated O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 by not using ordinary care to maintain safe premises.
b) They failed to inspect and maintain the premises properly.
c) They allowed their invited guests to use an unsafe area of the property.
d) They did not take sufficient measures to protect guests from double bookings.
e) They failed to train and supervise their employees regarding premises care.
f) They negligently retained, entrusted, hired, trained, and supervised these employees.
g) They did not remedy the dangerous conditions that arose.

Defendants also neglected to establish appropriate policies and procedures to ensure that invitees received adequate notice of dangerous conditions. Additionally, they failed to train their employees on safety procedures related to maintaining the premises, including their booking system. Overall, Defendants exhibited negligence in training and supervising their staff.

The defense filed comparative liability defenses in response. In a consolidated pre-trial order briefing, defense counsel argued that the Defendant held only partial liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The defense brief stated, “Plaintiff attempted to enter the room using the keycard; however, the interior security latch was engaged. The door only opened as far as that security measure allowed.” It continued, “Plaintiff attempted to bypass this security mechanism by reaching her hand into the door opening. However, before she could overcome the security latch, the room’s occupant slammed the door on Plaintiff’s hand, resulting in injury.” Following this incident, the plaintiff sought treatment for her injuries, which included emergency room care, physical therapy, and orthopedic surgery.