Reducing unforeseen risks through active watchfulness
Risk is inherent is almost every activity. It surrounds us in our educational, business and personal lives. Learning how to identify, analyze, assess, control, avoid, minimize or eliminate unacceptable risks is a life skill needed by all.
To begin with, let us look at a simple, yet uncomplicated and conceptualized definition of risk. ISO 33000.2018 defines it is as “Effect of uncertainty on objectives”. Objectives may be safety, related or performance related. In Essence, it means that any effect due to any cause, which leads to deviation from expectations, is risk.
Risks come in many forms and consequences. Most organisations are capable of managing the ones they think they know about. However, merely covering routine risks may not be always sufficient. Not every standard approach or action taken works as intended. Rather than wait until the unforeseen occurs, companies need to identify likely causes that may set it off. Put simply, most companies are prone to taking corrective actions after a problem happens (reactive), unlike taking preventive actions to a potential problem before it can arise (proactive).
Hotels have a reasonable obligation to make their premises safe and to prevent foreseeable accidents. A “foreseeable” accident is one that a sensible manager knows, or should know could happen under certain circumstances, for example, a ‘spill’ or a recent mopping of the floor in the hotel lobby, making it potentially slippery. Placing out a wet floor sign is a common way that hotels alert customers of hazards. However, merely placing a sign board does not absolve the property operator’s negligence in case of a fall. Situations where this may not be enough include:-
The above are a few examples of easily foreseeable accidents. However, there are some types of accidents that are not easily foreseeable unless thoroughly inspected ‘on-the go’.
Case in point: A guest at a Marriott in Detroit was attending a conference. The ballroom was used as a dining hall for the convention. Wanting a cup of tea, she joined a line at a buffet table. While following the path of the line, which took her between two tables, she tripped and fell, fracturing her shoulder, after her shoe caught on an upturned corner of an electrical grid. She had not seen the grid because there were many people waiting in the line and the placement of tables blocked her view of the floor. She sued the hotel.
In court, the director of engineering stated that the edges of electrical grids sometimes upturned. When it was reported to him, he repaired it by replacing the rubber around the edge of the grid or taping down the upturned corner. He further testified that his department does not “go around looking for any broken things.”
The court refused the hotel’s appeal to dismiss the case on several counts. One, been that when the director of engineering clearly stated that hazards were fixed only when reported, thus indicating that the hotel’s approach to certain risks was reactionary. Another area of discontent was the fact that other electrical grids in the ballroom had been taped down. According to the judge, the hotel thus had prior knowledge that the grids were “an ongoing and known risk of becoming tripping hazards to hotel guests.” This should have drawn the hotel’s obligation to carry out regular inspections. Another reason was that the placement of the two buffet tables effectively prevented the plaintiff from seeing the danger posed by the upturned grid.
Ilzaf Keefahs is a free lance writer who enjoys focusing on hospitality related matters that he is passionate about, and likes to share his views with hoteliers and customers alike. He delves into the heart of hospitality to figure out both customer service and consumer trends that impact the industry
|
|
|
|
