If You Were Sexually Assaulted at a Travelodge in Maidenhead, This Page Is for You
We are sorry for what has happened to you. Reading this page means something terrible has already happened, and you are trying to understand what the law will and will not do for you. We will not soft-pedal that. A woman checked into a Travelodge in Maidenhead believing the room behind the locked door was hers — the one safe place every guest is supposed to have. A man walked in with a key the hotel had given him after he said one sentence: that he was her boyfriend. What followed was a sexual assault. He has since been convicted and jailed.
You are reading this either because you are that woman, because another woman has come forward with what happened to her in a Travelodge in Maidenhead, or because you love someone in that position and you are trying to understand whether the law anywhere — anywhere at all — will make a hotel answer for letting this happen. We have looked at the facts that are public, at the controlling law of England and Wales, and at what the courts in the United Kingdom have done when hotels and guest houses failed to protect their guests from foreseeable criminal attack. The short answer is: yes, you have a claim. The longer answer is what the rest of this page is about — what the law demands of an occupier, what the hotel knew and when, what you have to do in the next 30 days to protect your case, and what your compensation looks like.
If after reading this you want to talk to us, the call is free, confidential, and there is no fee unless we win. The number is at the bottom of the page. Read on first, then call.
The Law That Governs Your Claim
“An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose.”
— Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, section 2(2)
That single sentence is the legal heart of your case. It is the duty a hotel — any hotel — owes to you the moment you walk in the door and become a guest. The hotel is not merely a place that sells you a bed. Under the law of England and Wales, the hotel is an “occupier” of premises, and the duty it owes to you as a “visitor” (which is the legal term for a paying guest) is to take reasonable care to see that you will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose — which is, in plain English, staying the night without being attacked.
The duty is not abstract. It is operational. It means the hotel must think about who is in the building, who is being let in, and what is being done to keep the guests safe from foreseeable harm. The courts have applied this duty to require hotels to take reasonable steps to prevent assaults by third parties on their premises when those assaults were foreseeable — meaning when the hotel knew, or should have known, that there was a real risk of them. A hotel cannot hide behind the criminal act of the attacker. The attacker is responsible for the criminal act, but the hotel can be responsible in civil law for failing to protect you from the criminal act in the first place.
There is a second pillar. The general law of negligence in England and Wales — the common law developed over centuries of cases — requires a defendant to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that cause foreseeable harm to people who are within a relationship of proximity to the defendant. A paying guest of a hotel is, plainly, in such a relationship. The hotel owes you a duty of care. When the hotel breaches that duty — for example, by handing a room key to a stranger on the basis of a single unsupported claim that the stranger is your boyfriend — and you are injured as a result, the hotel is liable in negligence.
You do not have to choose between these two claims. A claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and a claim in common law negligence can be brought together. The legal principles overlap, and the evidence that proves one often proves the other.
A third legal source applies to the way the company handles your data and your complaint. The Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation require organisations to handle personal data — including sensitive personal data about sexual assault — lawfully, fairly, and with appropriate security. The way the company has said it “handled” the victim’s email on her behalf is, in our view, a fair area of inquiry under these provisions, separate from the personal injury claim. We will not develop that in detail here, but we will not let it go unmentioned. A company that is told a guest was sexually assaulted in one of its rooms and then “handles” the message itself has obligations under the data protection regime that go beyond ordinary customer service.
What “Knew or Should Have Known” Means for Your Case
The hardest part of any hotel liability case is proving that the hotel knew, or should have known, that there was a real risk of the harm that occurred. The Maidenhead case is unusually strong on this point, for three reasons that we see from the public reporting.
The first is the post-incident response. The victim wrote to the Chief Executive in January 2023. The company has said the email was “handled on her behalf” and the Chief Executive has said she only learned of the incident when the attacker appeared in court. A reasonable hotel has a system that ensures that an email from a guest reporting a sexual assault reaches the most senior person in the building within hours, not months later, and certainly not after the criminal case is in the newspapers. The fact that the company’s own process failed in this way is itself evidence that the company did not have reasonable systems for receiving and acting on reports of this kind. A reasonable hotel in 2023 would not have allowed that email to be “handled on her behalf” by someone other than the Chief Executive or a designated safeguarding lead.
The second is the pattern. Since the original case, multiple other women have come forward with reports about Travelodge properties. Some of these reports describe attempts to enter rooms. One describes a member of staff entering a room without knocking. Another describes a nude man banging on a door and performing sexual acts in a corridor. The pattern of these reports, taken together, suggests that the underlying problem at Travelodge was not a single rogue actor at a single property on a single night, but a system-wide failure in how the company identifies who is being admitted to its rooms and how it responds to reports of intrusion. Where a pattern of this kind is on the public record, the case for saying the hotel “should have known” becomes substantially stronger.
The third is the public statement. The Chief Executive has publicly apologised to the victim. The Prime Minister has publicly written to the Chief Executive expressing his concern. The company has publicly announced that it is hiring “Change Delivery Coaches” and has commissioned an independent review by a leading barrister. A company that has done all of these things has, in our reading, accepted in public that something was wrong with how it operated. That public acceptance, by the company’s own hand, is a powerful piece of evidence for the proposition that the harm was foreseeable and that the hotel’s response was inadequate.
There is a further point. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 imposes duties on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of non-employees who may be affected by what the employer does. The hotel’s guests are non-employees. A serious sexual assault in a hotel room is a foreseeable risk to guest health and safety. Where a hotel’s systems for controlling access to rooms are so weak that a stranger can obtain a key card to a guest’s room, the hotel is not taking reasonable care of guest safety within the meaning of that Act either.
The Evidence You Must Preserve — And How Fast It Disappears
This is the most time-sensitive part of the entire page. If you are reading this within days or weeks of the incident, the single most important thing you can do is preserve the evidence. After that window passes, the most important evidence in a hotel sexual assault case can be legally destroyed by the hotel.
The first category is the hotel’s own records. The key-card system at every Travelodge in the United Kingdom records every door opening. The system records when a guest’s key card is issued, when it is used, which room it is used to access, and at what time. The system at the front desk records when a second key card was issued, to whom it was issued, and on what stated basis. These are the records that will show — to the minute — how the attacker obtained a key to the victim’s room. These records are not kept indefinitely. The hotel’s data retention policy — which the hotel writes itself, because there is no law of general application that requires a hotel to keep key-card records for any fixed period — will set the period. Some hotels overwrite the system after 30 days, others after 60, others after 90. You must send a letter to the hotel, in writing, instructing it to preserve all key-card records, all front-desk logs, and all CCTV footage immediately. That letter, sent by a solicitor, creates a legal duty to preserve. If the hotel then destroys the records, that is spoliation of evidence, and a court can draw the strongest possible inference against the hotel.
The second category is CCTV footage. Most Travelodge properties have CCTV at the front desk, in the corridors, and at the entrances. The footage from the night of the assault is the single most powerful piece of evidence in the case. It will show the attacker arriving at the front desk, what he said, what the staff did, and whether any verification was done. It will also show, in many cases, what the attacker did in the corridor before and after the assault. CCTV is typically kept on a rolling loop of 30 days. After 30 days, it is overwritten and gone forever. You have a 30-day window from the date of the incident to obtain the footage, or the most important visual evidence in the case may be lost.
The third category is the hotel’s incident logs and complaint records. The hotel is required to keep records of complaints and incidents. These records will show whether other guests had previously reported intrusions, attempted entries, or assaults at the same property. They will also show whether the hotel had any system for escalating reports of sexual assault. These records are typically kept for longer than CCTV, but they are not kept forever, and the hotel’s lawyers will resist producing them if they have not been formally requested.
The fourth category is your own records. The medical records from the immediate aftermath of the assault — the examination, the counselling notes, the GP records, the prescription records — are the spine of the damages claim. The contemporaneous account you gave to the police, to the NHS, to a counsellor, or to a friend in the immediate aftermath is the spine of the factual narrative. The travel records showing you were at the hotel on the night in question are the spine of the venue case. Preserve all of these now.
The fifth category is the public record. The criminal case against the attacker is on the public record. The sentencing remarks of the judge are on the public record. The news reporting is on the public record. The Prime Minister’s letter to the Chief Executive is on the public record. The company’s public statements and the appointment of Paul Greaney KC are on the public record. None of this is in your control, but all of it is available to us as soon as we are retained.
If you take only one action from this page, take this: write down, today, everything you remember about the night of the assault, the days before it, and the days after it, while the memory is still sharp, and give that written account to a solicitor who will hold it under privilege. Memory is the most fragile evidence of all, and it is the evidence on which your case will stand or fall.
The Insurance-Adjuster Playbook: What the Hotel’s Insurer Will Do
The hotel’s insurer will not send you a sympathy card. Within days of being told that you have been sexually assaulted in one of their rooms, the hotel’s insurer — or the claims handler acting on its behalf — will start a process that has been refined over decades. The purpose of the process is not to do justice. The purpose of the process is to settle the case for as little as possible, as quickly as possible, before the full extent of your injuries is known and before the hotel has to face the public consequences of its breach. We have seen this playbook many times. Here is what to expect.
The first play is the early sympathetic contact. Within the first 72 hours, you will receive a phone call from someone who is warm, concerned, and wants to “check on you.” That person is not your friend. That person is a claims adjuster. The conversation is being recorded. The adjuster is trained to get you to say things that will be used against you later — that you are “doing okay,” that you “didn’t think it was that bad at the time,” that you are “moving on.” Everything you say in that call will be quoted back to you if it helps the insurer. The counter to this play is simple: do not give a recorded statement to anyone representing the hotel or its insurer without first speaking to a solicitor. The insurer knows this is your right. They will pressure you to give up that right. Do not.
The second play is the quick settlement offer. Within the first few weeks, you may receive a letter offering you a sum of money — often described as an “ex-gratia payment” or a “gesture of goodwill” — in exchange for a full and final settlement of your claim. The amount will be a fraction of the true value of the case. The offer will be timed to arrive before you have had any counselling, before you have been assessed by a psychiatrist, before the full extent of your psychiatric injury is known, and before you have had time to take legal advice. The counter to this play is also simple: do not sign anything, and do not accept any payment, until you have had legal advice and a medical assessment. Once you sign a release, you cannot undo it.
The third play is the delay. The insurer’s strategy may be to delay the claim in the hope that you run out of energy, that you give up, that the three-year limitation period approaches and you feel you have no choice but to accept a low offer. The insurer will not return your calls promptly. The insurer will not produce the records you have asked for. The insurer will raise technical objections to the claim. The counter to this play is that the limitation period is your friend as well as theirs. We know how to use it. The insurer’s delay gives us time to assemble the evidence, find the CCTV, take statements from witnesses, and prepare the case. The insurer is not delaying the case; the insurer is letting us build it.
The fourth play is the blame-shifting. The insurer will argue, in one form or another, that the attack was the fault of the attacker alone, that the hotel could not have foreseen the attack, that you should not have been in the hotel, that you were somehow contributorily negligent in opening the door or in not calling the police sooner. None of these arguments survives scrutiny. The law of England and Wales does not allow a hotel to escape its duty by blaming the criminal it failed to protect you from. The hotel is liable in civil law for its own breach of duty, regardless of the criminal liability of the attacker. The counter to this play is the law itself.
The fifth play is the negotiation. Eventually, if the case is well-prepared, the insurer will come to the table. The negotiation is where the value of the case is realised. The better prepared the case, the better the negotiation. We prepare every case as if it will go to trial, because that is the only way to be sure the negotiation produces a fair outcome.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do If You Are the Victim
If you are reading this in the first hours or days after an assault at a Travelodge, here is what we recommend. None of this is legal advice in the formal sense, and none of it replaces the advice you will get from a solicitor. But it is a roadmap that, in our experience, makes the difference between a case that holds together and a case that does not.
The first thing is your immediate safety. If you are still in the hotel, leave. Go to a safe place. If you are in immediate danger, call the police on 999. If you can, take a friend or family member with you. The first 24 hours are the most disorienting, and the worst decisions are made in that period by people who are alone.
The second thing is the medical record. Go to a hospital or to your GP as soon as possible. Tell them what happened. Be as specific as you can. The medical record you create in the first 24 to 48 hours is the document that will tell the court, in years to come, what happened to you. If you do not feel able to go to a hospital, go to your GP. If you do not feel able to go to your GP, call the NHS sexual assault referral centre (SARCs exist in every part of England and Wales — search for “SARC” plus your local authority). The centres are staffed by people who do this work every day and who will not judge you.
The third thing is the police. If you have not already reported the assault to the police, do so. The criminal case is separate from the civil case, but the criminal case produces a record that is invaluable in the civil case. The police investigation, the witness statements taken by the police, and any forensic evidence collected by the police all become part of the documentary record on which your civil case is built. If you do not want to involve the police at this stage, that is your right and we will respect it. But understand that the longer you wait, the harder the criminal case becomes.
The fourth thing is the hotel. You do not have to talk to the hotel. If the hotel calls you, refer them to your solicitor. If you have not yet retained a solicitor, tell the hotel that you will not be giving a statement at this time. Do not sign anything. Do not accept any payment. Do not agree to any “ex-gratia” settlement. The hotel’s representative may be sympathetic, may seem reasonable, may tell you that they “just want to help” — and they may be entirely sincere. The fact remains that anything you say to the hotel can be used against you in your civil claim. The hotel’s insurer is not your friend.
The fifth thing is evidence. Preserve everything. The clothing you were wearing. The items in the room. The receipt from the hotel. The booking confirmation. The text messages and emails between you and anyone at the hotel. The screenshots of any online reviews you have left. The names of any staff you remember. If you took photographs, keep them. If you wrote anything down at the time, keep it. The case will be won or lost on the evidence. Start preserving it now.
The sixth thing is a solicitor. Call us. The call is free. The consultation is confidential. There is no fee unless we win. We will tell you honestly whether we are the right firm for your case, and if we are not, we will help you find someone who is.
How We Build a Case Like This
When a survivor of a hotel sexual assault comes to us, the first thing we do is listen. We listen to the whole story, in the survivor’s own words, and we take detailed notes. The notes are the beginning of the case file.
The second thing we do is preserve the evidence. We send a letter to the hotel, on the day we are retained, instructing it to preserve all key-card records, all CCTV footage, all front-desk logs, all incident reports, all staff training records, and all complaint records. We send a separate letter to the police asking for copies of the witness statements and the forensic evidence. We send a letter to the NHS asking for the medical records. We send a letter to any other relevant third parties — for example, the council, if the hotel has been the subject of any licensing or environmental health action.
The third thing we do is commission a medical report. We instruct an independent psychiatrist — usually one with experience of treating survivors of sexual assault — to examine the survivor, to review the medical records, and to prepare a report on the nature, severity, and prognosis of the psychiatric injury. This report is the spine of the general damages claim. It is also the basis on which the future need for treatment, counselling, and support is quantified.
The fourth thing we do is commission a financial report. We instruct a forensic accountant to prepare a calculation of the past and future loss of earnings, the past and future cost of care, and the past and future cost of treatment. The financial report, together with the medical report, is the basis on which the special damages claim is quantified.
The fifth thing we do is prepare the letter of claim. The letter of claim is the document we send to the hotel (or, more accurately, to the hotel’s insurer) setting out the facts of the case, the legal basis of the claim, the evidence we have, and the amount we are seeking. The letter of claim triggers the pre-action protocol — the formal process by which the parties are expected to exchange information and try to settle the case before issuing court proceedings.
The sixth thing we do is negotiate. Most hotel liability cases settle before trial. The hotel’s insurer will eventually come to the table, and our role is to make sure the negotiation produces a fair outcome. We prepare every case as if it will go to trial, because that is the only way to be sure the negotiation produces a fair number.
The seventh thing — if the negotiation does not produce a fair outcome — is to issue proceedings in the appropriate court and to take the case to trial. Trials of this kind are heard in the County Court or the High Court, depending on the value of the claim. The trial is the forum in which the hotel is put on oath, in which the evidence is tested, and in which a judge makes a finding. We are trial lawyers. We prepare for trial from day one.
Where We Practice
Our firm is based in the United States and is admitted to practice in Texas and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Travelodge case is a matter of English and Welsh law, and our analysis of the controlling legal framework is offered as expert commentary for informational purposes. We are not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and we cannot represent you in the English or Welsh courts. What we can do is work alongside a UK solicitor of your choosing, providing analysis of the legal principles, the evidentiary strategy, and the negotiation approach, and we can refer you to specialist UK solicitors we have identified who handle hotel sexual assault cases. If you would like a referral, contact us and we will put you in touch with a UK solicitor who is right for your case.
The reason we are writing this analysis at all is that the legal principles that govern hotel liability for sexual assault — the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, the common law of negligence, the foreseeability framework, the limitation regime, the damages calculation, the insurance playbook — are the same legal principles we have spent our careers working with, in different jurisdictions, in different formulations. We know the playbook from both sides. We know what the insurer is going to do. We know what the medical evidence looks like. We know what the right settlement number is. And we know that survivors of sexual assault in hotels are entitled to compensation under the law, regardless of the country in which the hotel is located.
Why the Corporate Response Matters
The news reporting describes a sequence of corporate actions taken by Travelodge since the assault came to public attention. The company has hired four “Change Delivery Coaches.” It has commissioned an independent review by Paul Greaney KC. The Chief Executive has issued a public apology. The Prime Minister has written to the Chief Executive expressing his concern.
These corporate actions are not without legal significance. A company that has publicly apologised is a company that has accepted, in a public forum, that something went wrong. A company that has commissioned an independent review by a leading barrister is a company that has accepted that an independent, external investigation is needed. A company that has hired “Change Delivery Coaches” is a company that has accepted that its own culture and processes need to change.
Each of these corporate admissions is evidence. The admissions are not, by themselves, an admission of legal liability — the company will not have said so, and the lawyers will have been careful about the wording. But the admissions are evidence of what the company knew, when it knew it, and what it has accepted needs to change. A civil claim is built from the evidence, and the evidence in this case includes the company’s own public admissions.
There is, however, a darker reading of the corporate response. The hiring of “Change Delivery Coaches” and the commissioning of a review are, in our experience, the kind of steps a corporation takes when it is trying to manage a public-relations crisis as much as when it is trying to address a systemic failure. The language of “transforming culture” and “embedding change” is the language of a company that wants to be seen to be doing something, without necessarily doing the thing that matters. The thing that matters is not the hiring of consultants. The thing that matters is the implementation of a system that actually prevents the next attack. The thing that matters is the willingness to compensate the survivor fully and fairly, in private, without requiring her to litigate.
We will hold the company to both standards. We will use the corporate admissions as evidence. We will also use the corporate admissions to set the bar — if the company is telling the public that it is transforming its culture, then the company will not be able to argue in private that the assault was the fault of a single rogue employee and that its systems were adequate. The company has told the public it is changing. We will hold it to that statement in the negotiation and, if necessary, in court.
How the Insurance Payout Actually Works
The hotel’s insurance is the practical source of any compensation you receive. The hotel itself — the operating company — is unlikely to have the cash to pay a six- or seven-figure damages award out of its own pocket. The insurance does.
A major hotel chain in the United Kingdom carries substantial employer’s liability and public liability insurance. The public liability policy typically covers claims for personal injury caused to guests by the hotel’s negligence, including claims arising from the hotel’s failure to take reasonable care of guest safety. The policy limits are typically substantial — often in the millions of pounds — and the insurance is usually arranged through a major insurer or through a Lloyd’s of London syndicate.
When we bring a claim against the hotel, the claim is, in practice, defended and paid by the hotel’s insurer. The hotel’s lawyers are usually instructed by the insurer. The hotel’s insurer is the entity that will make any settlement offer. The hotel’s insurer is the entity that will decide whether to fight the case at trial or to settle it.
The presence of insurance does not mean the case is easy. Insurance companies are in the business of paying out as little as possible, and the hotel’s insurer will use every tool at its disposal to limit the payout. The insurance playbook we described above — the early contact, the quick settlement offer, the delay, the blame-shifting, the negotiation — is the playbook of the hotel’s insurer. Our role is to see through the playbook and to hold the insurer to the proper value of the case.
The Connection to Other Travelodge Incidents
The news reporting describes other incidents at Travelodge properties. A marketing consultant, Wendy Griffith, has described being trapped in her room while a nude man banged on her door. Another guest, Charlotte Bingley, has described a member of staff entering her room without knocking. A separate man, Trevor Reece, has pleaded guilty to outraging public decency.
These other incidents are not part of your case in the strict legal sense — your case is your case, and the damages in your case are your damages. But the other incidents are evidence of the pattern of which your assault is a part. The pattern is evidence that the problem is not a single rogue employee at a single property on a single night, but a systemic failure in how Travelodge identifies who is being admitted to its rooms. The pattern is evidence that the risk of sexual assault was foreseeable to Travelodge, and that Travelodge failed to take reasonable steps to address it.
The pattern is also evidence that the company’s response has been inadequate. The Prime Minister has written to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive has apologised. The company has hired consultants. None of that undoes the harm you have suffered. None of that compensates you for the assault. None of that is a substitute for the company taking responsibility for what it has done.
The Travelodge case, taken as a whole, is the kind of case in which the company’s own public statements are evidence of its failure. The company has told the public that it is transforming its culture. We will hold the company to that statement in the negotiation and, if necessary, in court.
Why We Are Different
Most law firms do not handle hotel sexual assault cases. Most law firms do not have the experience, the resources, or the willingness to take on a major hotel chain. The reason is not that the cases are unwinnable — they are not. The reason is that the cases are hard, the cases are time-consuming, and the cases require a level of personal commitment from the lawyer that most firms are not willing to give.
We are different. We have built our practice around exactly this kind of case. We have spent our careers learning how hotel chains and their insurers defend these claims, and we have developed the strategies that overcome those defences. We have a record of holding major companies to account. We have the resources to take a case to trial if that is what is required. And we have the personal commitment to the survivors we represent.
We also have the medical and financial infrastructure. We have relationships with the leading psychiatrists who assess and treat survivors of sexual assault. We have relationships with the leading forensic accountants who calculate the financial losses in these cases. We have the relationships with the care experts and the life-care planners who quantify the cost of long-term care. We do not have to build the case from scratch each time. We have a process, and the process works.
The most important difference, though, is the way we treat the survivors we represent. We know that you are not just a case file. You are a person who has been through something terrible, and you deserve a lawyer who treats you as a person. We listen. We answer the phone. We explain what is happening and why. We do not hand your case to a paralegal and disappear. We are with you from the first call to the final settlement.
The Question of Compensation for the Hotel’s Conduct
Compensation in a hotel sexual assault case is not just about the money. The money is important — the money pays for the counselling, the money replaces the earnings, the money compensates for the loss of amenity, the money is the only practical acknowledgement the law can make of the wrong that has been done. But the compensation has another function that is often overlooked: it is the only mechanism by which the hotel is held to account for what it has done.
A hotel that has failed in its duty of care to its guests, and that is not held to account in a court of law, is a hotel that has been told, in effect, that the failure is acceptable. A hotel that is held to account — that is required to pay compensation, that is required to put the case on the public record, that is required to answer for its conduct — is a hotel that has been told, in effect, that the failure is not acceptable. The compensation is, in this sense, a part of the prevention. The compensation paid in your case is the compensation that helps prevent the next case.
This is not a sentimental point. It is a practical point. Hotel chains respond to financial pressure. The cost of settling a claim is, in the long run, less than the cost of not settling it — because the cost of not settling it is the cost of the next assault, the next survivor, the next criminal case, the next public statement by the Chief Executive, the next independent review by a leading barrister. The hotel that pays the compensation now is the hotel that has the strongest incentive to fix the problem now. The hotel that fights the case is the hotel that is gambling that the cost of fighting is less than the cost of fixing.
We have seen this dynamic play out in case after case. The hotel that fights ends up paying more, in the long run, than the hotel that settles. The hotel that settles sends a signal to the rest of the company that the conduct is not acceptable. The hotel that fights sends a signal that the conduct can be defended. We have a strong preference for the hotel that settles, and we work to make the settlement happen as early as the case allows.
A Final Word
If you are reading this because you or someone you love was sexually assaulted at a Travelodge in Maidenhead, we are sorry. The assault should not have happened. The hotel had a duty to protect you. The hotel failed in that duty. The hotel has, in public, accepted that it failed. The compensation we can help you obtain will not undo the harm. Nothing can undo the harm. But the compensation will pay for the counselling, the treatment, the care, the lost earnings, the loss of amenity, the life you should have had. The compensation will be the legal system’s acknowledgement of what was done to you. The compensation will be the lever that forces the hotel to fix the system that failed.
The first step is to call us. The call is free. The consultation is confidential. There is no fee unless we win. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. The lines are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Hablamos Español if that is more comfortable for you or your family.
Read the page again. Then call. The earlier we are retained, the better the case. The first thirty days are when the evidence is at risk. The first six months are when the key-card logs are at risk. The first three years are when the claim itself is at risk. The clock is running. The case is winnable. The hotel has accepted, in public, that it failed. We will make sure it is held to that acceptance in private, where the compensation is.
Contact us today — or explore our practice areas to see how we help people who have been injured by the carelessness of large institutions. We are here. The call is free. There is no fee unless we win.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.