Illustrative photograph; not a location, property or incident discussed in this article. Photo: Quang Nguyen Vinh / Pexels (Pexels License).
A guest injury can involve several businesses before a claim reaches regional counsel. A resort may have a property owner, a separate operating company, a branded reservation channel and independent activity providers. The guest’s experience may look seamless even where the legal arrangements are not.
The first legal assessment should therefore separate three questions: what happened, which duty is alleged to have been breached and which entity is said to owe that duty. A property defect, a disputed account of a fall and an allegation about a watersports instructor require different evidence. The presence of a hotel brand does not establish that the brand owns the premises or employed the person involved.
Three Dutch Caribbean judgments illustrate those distinctions. They offer a useful structure for assessing claims and improving prevention without assuming that every accident establishes liability or that an independent-contractor label resolves it.
A proven structural defect cannot be answered by a generic waiver
In a Sint Maarten hotel case, part of a stair tread was missing. The Common Court of Justice found it sufficiently established that the guest had fallen because of that defect. The hotel business, as possessor of the premises, was liable under the applicable defective-premises rule. The court affirmed liability and the award requiring further damages to be assessed separately.
The hotel also relied on a term excluding its legal liability for compensation. The court held that the presumption that this complete exclusion was unreasonably onerous had not been rebutted. Arguments about the hotel’s predominantly American clientele, holiday behaviour and the possibility of insurance did not save the clause. Common Court of Justice, 4 November 2011, ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2011:BU8425, paragraphs 4.3–4.5.
For a resort team, the immediate lesson concerns repair escalation and route management. A report about a broken step should identify who can close the route, provide an alternative and authorise repair. It should not disappear between the engineering department, property owner and operator while each assumes another party is responsible.
The judgment also warrants a close review of guest-facing exclusions. It does not invalidate every risk allocation or every activity acknowledgement. It does show why a comprehensive exclusion cannot be treated as a substitute for addressing a dangerous defect, or assumed effective merely because it is familiar in another market.
An accident photograph must be tied to the accident
An Aruba judgment of 21 September 2022 reached a different outcome after a guest fell on stairs near a swimming pool. Her claim relied on the allegation that a tread was wet and slippery at the time. The court examined video, witness evidence and the incident report, but found that the relevant wet condition had not been established.
Photographs and footage showing the stairs wet on other occasions did not establish their condition at the place and time of the fall. The court rejected the claim on that factual basis and did not need to resolve the remaining allegations about the condition of the stairs or dangerous conduct. Aruba Court of First Instance, 21 September 2022, ECLI:NL:OGEAA:2022:544, paragraphs 2.4–2.12.
That is a narrow evidential conclusion, not a ruling that poolside stairs require no safeguards. It supports disciplined scene recording. After immediate assistance and making the area safe, preserve the original available footage and record the precise location, time, lighting, weather, surface condition and any subsequent cleaning or repair. Distinguish what a witness saw from what the witness inferred.
A photograph taken the following morning can be valuable, but its date and limitations must remain visible. The same applies to a maintenance log or later inspection: it may describe the general condition without proving the exact condition at the incident. Conversely, the first case shows that sufficiently supported evidence of a defect and its connection to the fall cannot be answered merely by suggesting other hypothetical causes.
An activity claim needs both a provider map and an account of the conduct
In an Aruba flyboarding dispute, the claimant alleged that he had been propelled too high and suffered injuries leading to a later stroke. There was also uncertainty about whether the defendant was the provider responsible for the activity: the instructor described himself as self-employed and as hiring equipment from others.
The court assumed the defendant was the relevant provider for the purpose of examining the alleged wrongdoing, without finally determining that identity issue. After reviewing the video and circumstances, it found the alleged dangerous conduct had not been established. The claim failed, so the court did not determine the medical causal link. Aruba Court of First Instance, 8 May 2019, ECLI:NL:OGEAA:2019:258, paragraphs 4.2–4.7.
This judgment is not a general finding that flyboarding is safe, that participation waives a claim or that a hotel escapes responsibility for an independent provider. No hotel’s liability for arranging an activity was decided. Its practical relevance is that the provider relationship and the alleged conduct must each be established rather than collapsed into a single assumption.
For a resort offering access to outside activities, retain a clear account of who sells the service, takes payment, provides instructions, supplies equipment and employs or engages the instructor. Check whether the booking confirmation and on-site explanation match the commercial agreement. A guest should not have to reconstruct the provider’s identity from conflicting branding and payment records after an accident.
Build a claim file without losing the prevention lesson
A useful review should track premises control, activity control and evidence separately. The owner may hold the property while the operator handles inspections. An activity vendor may control instruction while another business supplies equipment. Insurance and indemnity arrangements should be reviewed against those actual roles, including notice and cooperation obligations; their existence does not by itself settle the guest’s rights.
The operational response should also survive the outcome of a claim. A claim may fail because an allegation was not proved, yet expose a weakness in inspection or incident recording. A claim may succeed despite a signed form, showing that the prevention process deserved more attention than the wording of the disclaimer.
For counsel, the aim is an accurate account that supports both a fair response to the guest and a specific corrective action where needed. Avoid premature admissions or categorical denials before the relevant entity, evidence and legal basis have been checked. Prompt care for the injured guest and careful legal assessment can proceed together.
These Aruba and Sint Maarten decisions are fact-specific. Applicable local law, contract terms and the parties’ actual roles must be reviewed for each claim. This article provides general information, not an assessment of any particular hotel or activity provider.
For related services, see ZL Attorneys’ liability law and Aruba pages. The applicable island law and local representation requirements must be assessed for each matter.
