Search
Close this search box.

De la Flor v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., L.L.C., No. 13-12411 (11th Cir. May 20, 2014)

 

George De La Flor appealled the dismissal with prejudice of their amended complaint against The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., and Marriott International, Inc. (“Ritz-Carlton”). De La Flor suffered cardiopulmonary arrest while he was exercising in the fitness facility at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on South Beach in Miami, Florida. De La Flor complained that Ritz-Carlton negligently failed to have an automated external defibrillator in its fitness facility in South Beach and that Ritz-Carlton breached its contract by failing to fulfill promises made in its marketing materials to provide a “state of the art” fitness facility. The district court dismissed De La Flor’s complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.

 

The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision and found that the district court did not err by dismissing De La Flor’s claim that Ritz-Carlton was negligent in failing to place a defibrillator in the fitness facility. Under Florida law, if a person voluntarily undertakes to perform a duty that results in an injury to another, the person is liable if his failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of such harm or the harm was suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking.  De La Flor argued that Ritz-Carlton undertook the duty to provide a defibrillator by having one on the premises, but Ritz-Carlton was not required to have a second defibrillator. De La Flor also argued that Ritz-Carlton assumed a duty to provide a defibrillator by recommending in its internal operating procedures that hotels adopt the industry standard of placing the machine in fitness rooms, but the adoption of industry standards by Ritz-Carlton created no independent legal duty with which it had to comply.

 

The appellate court also held De La Flor failed to state a claim that Ritz-Carlton breached its contract by failing to provide a defibrillator, oxygen, and aspirin in the fitness room. De La Flor alleged he relied on representations made by Ritz-Carlton in its marketing materials that the fitness facility was “state of the art,” but the court found those representations did not constitute an offer for De La Flor to accept. The court explained that the advertisements contained no representations about medical equipment, a defibrillator, or medication in the fitness facility.