Archive for August, 2009

Hotel Lawyer Stephen Barth Re-Urges Hospitality Industry to Be Smoke-Free

Monday, August 31st, 2009

In the wake of renewed global concern of a H1N1 pandemic, hotel lawyer Stephen Barth urges the entire hospitality industry (specifically, hotels, restaurants, clubs), as well as all places of public accommodation to be smoke free, both inside and outside.

There should not be smoking in places of public accommodation.  Period.  Smoke-free means zero smoke on the grounds and the facility, which includes no smoking in the parking lots, garages, pool-side, on balconies or verandas, or anywhere in the facility.

Secondhand smoke drifting from outdoor areas can easily find its way into the hotel facility. Those that smoke in an outdoor area (especially those in close proximity to other smokers and, accordingly, their smoke) bring third-hand smoke (smoke residue) back into the facility on their clothes, hands and hair. Both secondhand and third-hand smoke can greatly diminish the air quality in the hotel’s public area and guest rooms.

The fire hazard in and of itself, especially in hotels, should be enough to warrant the prohibition of smoking.  But now, with the very real threat of a pervasive pandemic and the viral nature that is transmitted via second and third-hand smoke, it is incumbent upon all places of public accommodation to be completely smoke free.  Guests and employees need to be prohibited from smoking on the entire property of the public place of accommodation (i.e., hotels, restaurants, clubs, airports, and cruise ships).

The health and safety of their employees and guests demand a smoke free environment.  Any other approach is a gross disregard for the safety and welfare of those constituencies.

As AH&LA states in its bulletin on the H1N1 pandemic (available here), in the case of a pandemic, hoteliers should “be sure the ventilation and all air movement systems are not moving contaminated air into other parts of the establishment.”

Additionally, smoking outside is not a solution.  The smoke does not dissipate immediately.  It lingers.  It gets blown into nonsmoking areas and sucked into air circulation systems.

It is imperative that all places of public accommodation consider whether they are truly smoke-free.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Hotel Law, Hotel Regulations, Hotel Safety and Security, Private Club Law, Restaurant Law, Social and Economic Issues for Hotels | No Comments »

HospitalityLawyer Stephen Barth Questions the Definition of “Smoke-Free”

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

Recently hotels have been describing themselves as “smoke-free.”  I caution the industry to scrutinize what is occurring at their hotels before labeling it “smoke-free.”

Smoke-free means zero smoke on the grounds and the facility, which includes no smoking in the parking lots, garages, pool-side, on balconies or verandas, or anywhere in the facility.

Secondhand smoke drifting from outdoor areas can easily find its way into the hotel facility. Those that smoke in an outdoor area (especially those in close proximity to other smokers and, accordingly, their smoke) bring third-hand smoke (smoke residue) back into the facility on their clothes, hands and hair. Both secondhand and third-hand smoke can greatly diminish the air quality in the hotel’s public area and guest rooms.

Hotels that claim that by allowing smoking areas, they are accommodating all guests are being disingenuous. Allowing smoking around the pool, for instance, means the vast majority of the guests must breathe in tainted air to enjoy the pool area.

That is not an accommodation for all guests.  It is an accommodation for a fraction of guests that disturbs a significant number of other guests.  It is only putting very marginal revenue ahead of the health and welfare of your guests.

If one guest wanted to play music so loud that it disturbed other guests, the innkeeper would not hesitate to insist that the music player turn down the volume so that it does not disturb the other guests.

Allowing smoking in places of public accommodation is a poor customer service decision and a poor business decision.

Read my challenge to the hospitality industry to go smoke free at http://blog.hospitalitylawyer.com/2007/12/05/hospitalitylawyer-stephen-barth-founder-of-hospitalitylawyercom-challenges-the-industry-to-go-non-smoking/.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Hotel Law, Hotel Regulations, Hotel Safety and Security, Private Club Law, Restaurant Law, Social and Economic Issues for Hotels | 1 Comment »

Hotel Lawyer Stephen Barth Suggests Legislative Initiative on Innkeeper Statutes

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

With the pervasiveness of in-room safes, the industry needs to request clarifying language in innkeeper statutes.

Do state statutes requiring safes/safety deposit boxes include in-room safes? The statutory language needs to clarify whether in-room safes are included in the definition of a “safe” or “safety deposit box.”  And if so, are innkeepers still required to have safety deposit boxes at the front desk?

So far, we are aware that Hawaii and Massachusetts have modified their statutes.

Hawaii’s innkeeper statute contains a separate clause limiting liability when  a “security box” is in a guest’s room.  The statute is available at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0486K/HRS_0486K-0004.htm and is excerpted below:

If the keeper of a hotel provides a security box in the room of any guest and prominently posts a notice stating that a security box is provided in which valuables may be deposited and explains the liability for losses therefrom, the keeper of the hotel shall not be liable in any sum for any loss sustained by the guest unless the loss is due to the negligence or fault of the keeper of the hotel.

Similarly, Massachusetts’ statute also contains a separate clause limiting liability when a safe is provided in a guest’s room.  The statute is available at http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-10.htm and is excerpted below:

Whenever an innholder provides a security box in the room of any guest, the innholder shall not be liable for the loss of any items deposited in the security box, by theft or otherwise, in excess of one thousand dollars; provided, however, that the provisions of section thirteen have been complied with.

If your hotel has in-rooms safes, have you continued to maintain safety deposit boxes at the front desk?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Hotel Law, Hotel Safety and Security | No Comments »