## Facts

- A three-alarm fire occurred at the Milner Hotel in Philadelphia on October 11, 1978.
- Earlier that morning, a guest in Room 706 reported that her television was not working and asked that it be repaired.
- The desk clerk directed the hotel maintenance employee to inspect the television.
- While attempting to address the malfunction, the television emitted a burning odor and popping/crackling sounds; it was unplugged, moved, and replugged while switched on.
- The fire was found to have originated from the defective television set.
- Joseph S. Altamuro, a non-employee civilian, entered or remained in the hotel to help evacuate guests, including warning occupants by knocking on doors and carrying a woman to safety.
- Altamuro died from inhalation of smoke, fumes, and carbon monoxide during these rescue efforts.
- The administratrix of Altamuro’s estate sued the hotel for wrongful death in a federal diversity action.
- The hotel impleaded the City of Philadelphia for contribution and/or indemnity, alleging negligent police and fire response and asserting the City had exclusive control of the premises during the fire.
- After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the hotel breached its duty of reasonable care by failing to address an obviously dangerous, defective television and thereby proximately caused the fire and Altamuro’s death.
2. Whether Altamuro’s rescue efforts constituted contributory/comparative negligence, or whether the rescue doctrine precluded fault absent rash or imprudent conduct.
3. Whether the City’s police or fire personnel were negligent in a manner that proximately caused or contributed to Altamuro’s death, supporting contribution or indemnity to the hotel.

## Decision

- The court found the hotel negligent and held it liable for Altamuro’s death.
- The court held that Altamuro’s actions during the rescue were not rash or imprudent and therefore did not constitute contributory/comparative negligence.
- The court found insufficient proof of negligence by the City’s employees and entered judgment for the City on the third-party claim, denying contribution and indemnity.
- Judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the hotel with an award of wrongful-death-related damages.

## Legal Principles

- A hotel owes lawful occupants and others on the premises a duty of reasonable care to maintain safe conditions and respond appropriately to known or apparent hazards.
- A defendant whose negligence creates a dangerous situation may be liable for injuries sustained by a rescuer responding to that danger.
- Under Pennsylvania’s rescue doctrine, a rescuer is not treated as negligent unless the rescue conduct is rash or imprudent under the circumstances.
- A third-party claim for contribution or indemnity based on emergency response requires proof of negligent conduct and causation; alleged “exclusive control” during an emergency does not by itself shift liability.

## Conclusion

The court held the hotel liable for a fatal fire traced to an obviously malfunctioning television that was not handled with reasonable care, applied the rescue doctrine to reject comparative fault against a civilian rescuer whose conduct was reasonable in the emergency, and rejected the hotel’s attempt to shift responsibility to the City absent proof of negligent emergency response causing the death.


Altamuro v. Milner Hotel, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 870 (E.D. Pa. 1982)