Klaus Mittelbachert Vs East India Hotels LTD

SCHOOL OF LAW
CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)
CIA – 1
LAW OF TORT
(Klaus Mittelbachert vs East India Hotels Ltd.)
SUBMITTED BY-
PRATEEK KANAVI
19113027
BA LLB
SUBMITTED TO-
Prof. APURVA SHARMA
SCHOOL OF LAW
CHRIST DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY
LAVASA, PUNE
Klaus Mittelbachert vs East India Hotels Ltd.
FACTS:
Klaus Mittelbachert, the plaintiff, a German national born working as a co-pilot in the
Lufthansa, had checked into Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental, New Delhi on 13th of August
1972. He had lay-over period before a flight to Frankfurt. Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental is a
part of the East India Hotels Ltd. Lufthansa had made a contract with the five star hotel
mentioned above to provide service to all its employees. On the afternoon of 13th August
1972, the plaintiff had met with an accident in the swimming pool due to less depth in the
pool while diving. The pool was designed according to an old rule book and was found that
there was no change in the pool design even though the rules had changed. It is proved that
the style of the dive was not wrong and also that it was his first dive in the afternoon to deny
that he was tired. He was taken out of the water with the legs and a hand paralysed and was
bleeding from the right ear. His head had met with serious injury due to the faulty design of
the pool. The lower part of his body was completely paralysed and his skull had a major
crack. The plaintiff eventually developed bowel and respiration problems and died during the
proceedings of the case.
LAW:
The law involved in this case is NEGLIGENCE under Law of Torts.

Negligence is the failure on the part of one person to take reasonable care of the other
person which is pre-implied. Negligence has four essential elements in it. They are-
1) Duty of care – It is the first element in negligence. Basically the plaintiff has to
establish negligence between him and the defendant.
2) Breach of duty – It is the failure to maintain the standard of care required. This varies
greatly and mainly depends on factors like amount involved and the severity of the
damage.
3) Causation – It is the establishment of the relation between the plaintiff’s injury and
defendant’s act. It is necessary that the injury is foreseeable.
4) Injury – It is the legal damage suffered by the plaintiff due to defendant’s act or
omission.
In this particular case there existed a pre-implied duty to take care of the plaintiff.
The duty of care, as held in the case, depends on what standard is maintained by the party.
Since it was a five star hotel the duty of care implied to be more compared to any other
ordinary hotel. This duty was breached because there was improper construction of the
swimming pool, which led to the accident. Next, if the swimming pool in the hotel was
constructed according to the recommended scales, plaintiff would not have suffered any
injury, which implies causation. It is clear by the facts that the plaintiff had suffered
enough injury and had also died due to the same. Thus, the plaintiff had sued the
defendant on the basis of negligence.
Another aspect which has to be seen here is the compensation for the damages. The
amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff by the defendant depends upon the amount
of damage caused. Thus, the monetary compensation provided to the plaintiff was calculated
on the basis of his age, rank of his job, pension rate as well as based on the life expectancy of
the person.
CONCLUSION:
It was held in the case that the hotel had negligence on its part. The defendants other
than the hotel owners were held not be liable for any actions (It serves as a master servant
relationship). The compensation to the damages caused were ordered to be given by the
defendants in terms of money.
Thus, the fault in this case completely lied with the hotel and its authorities. There
was no fault as part of Mr Mittelbachert, and best he could do was to ask the authorities in
charge about the depth of the pool before trying to dive into the pool. It is noticed in the facts
that after the government changed the rules of the minimum requirement of the pool, the
hotel did not alter the dimension of the pool and allowed its guests to use the service with the
design which did not follow the minimum requirements. The hotel could have either closed
diving in the particular pool or could have done the required alteration in the design to
comply by the rules. We can observe that since it was a five star hotel which charged more
than the ordinary hotels the court held that duty of care is more for this particular hotel
compared to the other ordinary hotels. Thus, the court held the hotel to be more liable on the
basis of negligence. Hence, we can infer that the amount of liability in case of negligence (in
the larger aspect as tort) varies with particular situations. The case could also be brought by
Lufthansa against the hotel in terms of breach of contract.

Klaus Mittelbachert Vs East India Hotels LTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Klaus Mittelbachert Vs East India Hotels LTD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Klaus Mittelbachert Vs East India Hotels LTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCHOOL OF LAW

CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)

The law involved in this case is NEGLIGENCE under Law of Torts.

You might also like