William Petrey, a passenger on a Princess Cruise, stayed at the Denali Princess Wilderness Lodge. While using the bathroom in his hotel room, Petrey tripped over a raised shower ledge while turning to pull up his shorts, hitting his head against the wall and sustaining injuries. Petrey sued Princess Cruise Lines and the hotel property owner, alleging they negligently constructed a dangerous bathroom configuration. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Petrey failed to provide evidence that the cruise line had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under a traditional negligence theory. The district court also dismissed Petrey's alternative claim for negligence per se, finding that the bathroom design did not violate any applicable building code. Petrey appealed, arguing that the evidence of the design's hazards and the defendant's knowledge was sufficient to proceed to trial.
The panel applied general maritime negligence principles, which require a plaintiff to prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. The court clarified that while a defendant who creates a condition is presumed to know the condition exists, this does not automatically mean they knew the condition was unreasonably dangerous. To establish a breach of duty, the plaintiff must show the defendant knew or should have known that a reasonable person would foresee the condition as unreasonably dangerous. The court rejected the argument that proof of prior similar incidents is required to show such knowledge, noting that while relevant, it is not the only method of proof. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Petrey, the court found that expert testimony from a biomechanical expert and a human factors safety expert created a genuine dispute of material fact. These experts opined that the bathroom layout posed an unsafe tripping hazard that should have been obvious to a competent safety manager, particularly given the high volume of elderly guests and prior falls. Consequently, the issue of whether the condition was unreasonably dangerous was a question of fact for a jury, necessitating the vacation of summary judgment on the negligence claim. Regarding the negligence per se claim, the court analyzed whether the bathroom configuration violated the 15-inch clearance requirement for obstructions found in the Uniform and California Plumbing Codes. The court concluded that a shower curtain is a movable object that can be moved out of the way to provide space, and therefore does not qualify as an 'obstruction' under the relevant plumbing code commentary. Because the curtain was not an obstruction, its placement did not violate the code, and Petrey failed to establish the statutory violation necessary for a negligence per se claim.
The case is remanded to the district court for trial on the traditional maritime negligence claim. The negligence per se theory is dismissed, meaning Petrey cannot rely on a statutory violation to prove breach of duty. The decision clarifies that in maritime negligence cases involving conditions created by the defendant, the focus is on the foreseeability of the danger rather than just the existence of the condition, and that movable objects like shower curtains do not trigger plumbing code violations regarding obstructions.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download