We worked with Nick Veser of Liberty Link Media Group to create the above video to share our client's story with the insurance company and fully communicate the impact these burns have had on the young boy and his family.

Young Boy Suffered Severe Chemical Burns in Myrtle Beach Resort Pool

hotel poolOn Memorial Day weekend in 2020, our client - a three-year-old boy - spent the day in the pool and lazy river with his family at Caribbean Resort and Villas in Myrtle Beach. The boy was fussy throughout the ride back to his home in North Carolina, and after he was put to sleep later that night, he woke up a short time later screaming and crying uncontrollably. The family noticed redness around his groin that progressively got worse.

The family took the boy to his pediatrician the following morning and then to the hospital where the rash and blisters were diagnosed as a chemical burn. He was admitted to the UNC Burn Center where he stayed for seven days and underwent several painful sessions of debridement.

Holding a Corporation Accountable for Fraud, Over Chlorinated Pools, and a Culture of Unsafe Practices

The boy’s mother reported the incident and her son’s chemical burns to South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). According to South Carolina law, chlorine levels are required to be kept under 8ppm, which is on the high side. When DHEC tested the chlorine levels in the pools at the Caribbean Resort and Villas shortly after the boy was there, the chlorine levels were off the charts. DHEC temporarily shut down the resort’s pools due to their dangerously high levels of chlorine.

Through a series of depositions and hours of reviewing pool logs, our attorneys at the Law Office of Kenneth Berger noticed the logs were being completed on days when the pool operator wasn’t at work. In a deposition, Juan Rivera, a certified pool operator for Caribbean Resort and Villas, confessed he had not been testing the chlorine levels and instead had been falsifying the pool logs for three and a half years.

Online reviews of the resort also claimed that others had experienced burns and rashes from the pool’s high chlorine levels.  When deposing resort employees and leadership about the dangerous chlorine levels and falsified logs, no one seemed to care. Instead, the attitude within the corporation was that the pools must stay open no matter the cost.

$26 Million Settlement - A Wake-Up Call for Resorts

For years, Brittain Resorts - the corporation in charge of Caribbean Resort and Villas - refused to settle the case and accept responsibility for the harm they caused to our young client. In January of 2024, as we were preparing for trial, the corporation finally agreed to pay the policy limits of $26 million in exchange for a dismissal of a pending lawsuit and to avoid an upcoming jury trial. We hope this settlement is a reminder to resorts in Myrtle Beach and across the country to prioritize the safety of their guests.

Attorney Kenneth Berger said, “This settlement secures justice for Ashtyn Douglas, who, along with his family, have faced the consequences of these corporations’ failure to deliver on promises of providing a safe environment for its guests. We hope this case serves as a catalyst for heightened safety standards across the hospitality industry and are grateful that the Douglas family will finally be able to start the healing process and move forward.”

Myrtle Beach Lawyers for Resort and Hotel Injuries

If you or someone you care about has been injured at a Myrtle Beach resort or hotel, our team is here to advocate for you and guide you through the legal process. We want every client that walks through our door to feel welcomed, validated, and well-represented as we work toward a  resolution that provides comfort and hope without worrying about legal fees and logistics.

For a free consultation, contact us online today or call us at 803-790-2800 (Columbia, SC) / 843-427-2800 (Myrtle Beach, SC).


DISCLAIMER: The results are specific to the facts and legal circumstances of each of the clients' cases and should not be used to form an expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client's case.