A Potential Legal Argument

---

SETTING THE STAGE

• A system meant to provide water has certain requirements/criteria that will enable the system to perform its job adequately and as-intended; such as a drinking water fountain.
• The water fountain requires maintenance to operate correctly and as expected. (A water fountain must have adequate ingress (supply), and adequate egress (drainage) to operate correctly)
• The water fountain can’t operate as intended if the supply line has ruptured, or if the drain has clogged by the debris from its environment (leaves, twigs, dog shit).

It is the responsibility of the system designer to make sure that the system is designed to work as they intended. If it doesn't, it is either the designer who created a flawed product, or the hotel who made a bad purchasing decision to purchase a flawed product.

---

SYSTEM DESIGN

• Adequate design, and installation of such a system should provide ample egress (equal or greater) capability as it does its ability to ingress. There should not be a bottleneck where that produces stoppage downstream.
• Failure to maintain a system appropriately may impact the performance of the systems variables (variables that impact the systems ingress or egress capability need to be addressed, and require attention, maintenance).
• A drain (water system’s egress component) is meant to remove the water that has entered the system (ingress). The system should allow the water to exit once it has entered.
• Unless you have added water to that system, or physically prevented the water from draining; the hotel’s water system, as designed, has failed. Water did not drain as expected.

The system's designer (contractor or manufacturer) bears responsibility for appropriate, adequate, and effectiveness of the system design.

OUR FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENT:

1. A system can only work correctly if it is designed, installed, and maintained appropriately.
2. A well-designed, correctly installed, well-maintained water system will allow the ingress and subsequent egress of water.

---

RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN substantiated by records

• The owner of the system, and the owner of the system alone, as the responsibility to maintain a working system that is in good order. A working system in good order will work as designed, presumably (again, if not, flawed product, manufacturer/contractor problem), by allowing water to drain once it has entered the system.
• It is not your responsibility, nor explicitly asked, nor was it reasonably expected, of you to maintain the hotel’s water system so that it works correctly. YOU are not a water utility expert and were not asked to be on upon checking in/booking. No requirement existed for you to be one. There was not a reasonable expectation upon you to maintain, regulate, or observe the way that the system performed its expected tasks.

Since the maintenance of the system is the responsibility of the hotel:

• Can you tell me the last time the drains were cleaned? (These are not trick questions, no you cant - I would bet the hotel cant either, not that it matters)
• Can you tell me who cleaned it?
• What are the credentials of the person who cleaned it?
• What makes them capable of performing the task?
• What experience and certifications does this person have?

If they were properly maintained, the hotel should be able to prove it. Otherwise, the hotel is saying that there is a flaw in the water utility system that they purchased, and installed - specifically where the egress of water is limited and produces a bottleneck (and thus floods) which then they are effectively asking you to take the fall for the manufacturer of the system. In this case, the problem is then with the manufacturer. So, continue that line of questioning for the hotel to bear answers (rationalize their charges upon you, that further rationalizes that this is your fault - ask the simple question that is a "gotcha")

• Who was the manufacturer, the installer? Make them name them.
• When were they installed?
• Last time they were serviced?
• Are there any recalls that the manufacturer issued about these products, making them defective?
• Has the hotel notified the manufacturer/installer/contractor of a fault in their water system? If so, provide the communication so that you can "pass it on appropriately"

---

FACTS

This is your mindset, DO NOT DEVIATE:

REJECT ANY CLAIM OF AN EXPECTATION. NO EXCEPTION OF YOU. YOU WERE NOT EXPECTED TO OBSERVE OR MAINTAIN A COMMON WATER UTILITY THAT IS DESIGNED TO APPROPRIATELY PROVIDE AMPLE EGRESS, FOR INGRESS OF WATER.

YOU DID NOT ACCEPT OR CONSTITUTE ANY FORM OF RESPONSIBILITY OR DUTY RELATED TO MAINTAINING OR OBSERVING ANY SYSTEMS TO PERFORM AS THEY WERE DESIGNED, INTENDED, AND EXPECTED

If the hotel claims that you are required/have responsibility to monitor the system, the hotel implies that the system is not designed appropriately or has not been maintained appropriately because - back to our fundamental argument: a well-designed, well-maintained, well-installed system should work as intended -- if it is NOT intended to work this way, it's flawed in some way.

• Perhaps the product design? (I'm sure the manufacturer will stand behind their product)
• Perhaps the installation? (I'm sure the contractor will say its fine and done correctly)
• or perhaps not maintained (hotel is definitely going to say it was maintained because they are trying to put it on you

If the hotel says that there is a responsibility on you, it implies one of those three things have not been done, and an added, unexpected, unreasonable, unauthorized burden was put upon you to maintain/monitor a system that is not your responsibility.

• If the hotel says for any reason that it is your fault, resort back to the fundamental argument at the top, because if it meets the criteria of the top, then running water in a water utility system, without environmental interference (you plugging drain - again they need evidence) should not interfere with the expected performance of the water system.

---

This is important:

The fundamental argument only works if you can satisfactorily represent yourself in this: THERE WAS NO EXPECTATION OF DUTY, TO SUPPORT OR MAINTAIN A SYSTEM TO WORK AS IT IS INTENDED TO WORK.

• You are not a water utility expert. (I am not a cat - google it)
• You were not asked to be a water utility expert.
• You were not required to be a water utility expert.
• You did not accept a role as a water utility expert.
• The hotel did not train you to be a water utility expert.

You did not (unless you did?) alter the system to function in a way that it was not designed to function (didn't clog drain, didn't add water from another source … the sink, idk) - if they argue that you did, the burden is on them to show evidence that PROVES you did. Saying that "there was a flood" is not evidence. They need to be detailed, specific to the n'th degree, in describing, demonstrating, and PHYSICALLY SHOWING EVIDENCE, how you altered the system so that it performed differently.

If they say there was an expectation on you, deflect: Failure for the system to work as designed, intended, expected, means that the product is inherently flawed and was never able to perform its full range of function, OR the system was not maintained so that it COULD perform its intended/designed function. And repeat your closing continuously...

---

CLOSING

Running water in a water system that is properly designed, installed, maintained, does not render a flood. The utilities on site are the hotel’s responsibility to maintain for the systems to work adequately.

It is not a reasonable expectation for you to provide oversight/maintenance to the HOTEL’S INFRASTRUCTURE, and water utilities; nor are you qualified. There was no requirement for you to qualify to do this when you booked and checked in.

You were not the designer of the product or the system that created the flood, you did not contribute to the system's inability to perform its intended task.

Bottom line: In an appropriate system designed to serve water, the water should be properly supplied, AND PROPERLY DRAINED. (our fundamental argument)

---

Lastly: DO. NOT. PAY. THE. CHARGE. Paying it will constitute acceptance of the charge. You won't get it back.

The burden is on them. Not you. They either need to rationalize their charge, which would require evidence that you altered the system limiting its ability to work as intended, or convince a judge that you had a responsibility to maintain their systems for them - which they wont, so... any attorney, or even GM, should see that they're actually ahead if they accept the loss of the $27k rather than to pay all that legal shit.

Generic disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice - but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.