12/04/2023
In Aleta v. Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila (G.R. No. 228150, 11 January 2023), the SC found that while a swimming pool itself is not an "attractive nuisance" -- something attractive to children, so as to create a responsibility on the owner of the premises to take appropriate precautions -- its close proximity to a slide "with slopes ending over the swimming pool's waters" (legal talk for kiddie pool slide π) makes it an "attractive nuisance". Thus, the hotel was responsible "to guarantee that appropriate safeguards were in place within the attractive nuisance in order to protect children against injury from unknown or unseen dangers."
The fact that the injury happened within the premises of the pool -- an attractive nuisance -- justifies application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). Therefore, it can be inferred (but not presumed) that injury was caused by the hotel's negligence.
The SC reversed the Trial Court and Court of Appeals, and found the hotel responsible for the injuries sustained by the children at the pool.
