“Under Hawai’i law, a landowner has a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all persons reasonably anticipated to be on the premises….Further, Hawai’i courts recognize that a hotel has a ‘special relationship’ with its guests […] to protect the latter against unreasonable risk of physical harm.”
  
   “…Court precedent found in 2010 with Robbins v. Marriott Hotel Services establishes that hotels may have to take extra steps to warn guests about “an open and obvious danger.”
 Royal Lahaina did not have an on-duty lifeguard, only a sign that said, “Warning: No Lifeguard on Duty,” according to the complaint.
A California travel agency must face a trial to determine whether it is liable for the near drowning of a woman who used a hotel pool despite a sign that alerted guests there was no lifeguard on duty, a federal judge ruled.
Song Meyong Hee is now “incapacitated” and “a vegetable,” after sinking in a Royal Lahaina Resort swimming pool and suffering severe hypoxia, according to the complaint filed by Song’s husband and children.
For more:Â http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/06/42001.htm
Are there state or local laws requireing anything other than a warning sign? If not, it’s hard to understand why any liability should accrue. Why would anyone need further warning about “an open and obvious danger”?
Are there state or local laws requireing anything other than a warning sign? If not, it’s hard to understand why any liability should accrue. Why would anyone need further warning about “an open and obvious danger”?