The Safety Incident: Guest Injury, Reporting, and Reputation
At 11:40 pm on a Saturday, a guest slips on a wet patch in the lobby near the bar and fractures a wrist. The lobby was mopped 15 minutes earlier, but the wet-floor sign had been moved by another guest and not replaced. The duty manager called an ambulance, and the guest was treated and released. The next morning the guest's partner posts a detailed account on a review site alleging the hotel 'knew the floor was wet and did nothing.' Your insurer asks for an incident report within 48 hours. The hotel is at 96% occupancy, the bar was at capacity, and the CCTV shows the sign being moved but not replaced for 11 minutes.
1. What immediate actions would you take in the first 24 hours, and in what order?
Read the worked answer
The first priority is the injured guest. I would confirm the guest's condition, ensure follow-up contact and any medical or transport costs are handled with empathy, and assign a single point of contact so the guest is not passed around. Simultaneously I would secure the evidence: preserve the CCTV footage before it overwrites, photograph the scene, and collect statements from the duty manager, the bar staff, and any witnesses. The 11-minute gap between the sign being moved and the fall is the critical fact, and it must be documented accurately rather than minimized.
Next I would complete the insurer's incident report within the 48-hour window, describing facts rather than conclusions. I would notify the relevant health and safety authority if local rules require reporting of a guest injury involving a slip, and I would check the requirement rather than assume. I would also brief the bar and lobby teams on the specific failure: a sign that can be moved by a guest is not a control. The order matters because evidence degrades and the guest relationship cools with delay.
2. How would you respond publicly to the review, and what would you change operationally?
Read the worked answer
I would respond publicly within 24 hours, acknowledge the incident without admitting liability, express genuine concern for the guest, and invite direct contact through a named manager. I would not argue with the account or disclose CCTV details in public, because that escalates and may prejudice the insurance position. The response should be short, human, and focused on the guest's wellbeing and the corrective action taken.
Operationally, the root cause is a control that depends on a sign staying in place. I would replace movable signs with fixed or weighted barriers, add a documented wet-floor protocol with a named owner and a check interval, and require a second person to monitor the area during peak bar hours. I would also add a post-incident review to the safety committee agenda and audit compliance for 30 days. The judgement is to separate the public response, which is about care and accountability, from the legal response, which is about facts and evidence, while making sure the operational fix addresses the actual failure rather than the appearance of one.
3. The insurer hints that the claim may be denied if the wet-floor protocol was not followed. How do you manage that risk?
Read the worked answer
I would establish exactly what the written protocol required, what actually happened, and whether the gap was a one-off or a pattern. The CCTV shows the sign was moved and not replaced for 11 minutes, so the honest position is that the control failed in execution. I would provide the insurer with the protocol, training records, inspection logs, and the corrective actions already taken, because demonstrating a robust system with a documented failure is stronger than claiming no failure occurred.
I would not coach staff to change their statements or backdate records; that would convert an insurance issue into a integrity and legal crisis. I would involve the hotel's legal counsel and let them lead communication with the insurer. In parallel I would assess the exposure if the claim is denied, since the hotel may face the guest directly, and I would review whether other properties in the group have the same movable-sign vulnerability. The judgement is to preserve credibility with the insurer and the guest, accept the documented failure, and show that the system has been corrected.