We Have That Bathroom Problem Again

LTB default 777x437

From a complaint filed in El Paso County, Colorado, in May:


8.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every other paragraph as though fully set forth herein.

9.  On or about May 28, 2010, Plaintiff [name redacted] was an invitee … at the Arby's Restaurant owned and operated by Defendant U.S. Beef Corp. and/or John Doe(s) and/or XYZ Corporation(s).

10. On or about May 28, 2010, Plaintiff … was utilizing the urinal in the men's restroom when it caused a jet of steam to shoot forth from the urinal and burn [Plaintiff’s] genitals.

11. Plaintiffs reported the incident to an employee who responded that "we have that bathroom problem again," and "this happens when the sink in the kitchen is running."

12. Disposal of superheated water and/or steam is an inherently dangerous activity.

13. Defendants owed Plaintiffs the highest duty of care to protect them against dangerous conditions of which Arby's knew or should have known.

14. Defendants breached that duty by operating, maintaining, inspecting, repairing and managing the subject property and urinal in a careless and negligent manner. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers on the subject property and warn against such known dangers. Such dangers at the subject property include, without limitation: (a) Plumbing and/or water heating systems that violate the applicable Building, Mechanical and Plumbing code, (b) Urinal that shoots jets of scalding steam, (c) Failure to properly repair a known dangerous urinal and/or plumbing issue.

15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence and carelessness, Plaintiff … has sustained economic and non-economic damages, injuries and losses as set forth herein.

Emphasis added.

I enjoyed the fairly deadpan tone of Paragraph 14: "Building code violation, check. Plumbing code violation, check. Urinal that shoots jets of scalding steam, check. Failure to repair …." Also, they were (allegedly) having this "bathroom problem again"? How long exactly did this go unaddressed? Wouldn't it be near the top of your things-to-be-fixed list?

Oh, if you're wondering whether the reference to "Plaintiffs" is a typo, it isn't. Plaintiff is married, and his wife is also a plaintiff, bringing what has to be one of the least surprising loss-of-consortium claims ever.