By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, alleging that a malfunctioning revolving door caused the death of 78-year-old Diana Truschke. The lawsuit claims the hotel negligently maintained the door, violating safety regulations, and that Truschke suffered fatal injuries after being ejected from the malfunctioning door. The plaintiff, Truschke’s son, seeks unspecified damages exceeding $15,000, citing negligence, and the Trump Organization has yet to respond to the suit. This incident adds to a history of alleged legal violations involving Trump-owned hotels.
Read the original article here
A lawsuit alleges that a woman was fatally injured after being violently ejected from a revolving door at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. The incident, which occurred in March 2023, resulted in the woman’s death in October 2024. The lawsuit claims that the revolving door malfunctioned, unexpectedly accelerating and throwing the woman several feet forward, causing her to fall face-first onto the floor.
The severity of the injuries sustained in the fall is underscored by the significant delay between the incident and her death. This suggests a complex series of events stemming from the initial trauma, potentially involving ongoing medical complications and extended treatment before her eventual passing. The possibility of complications arising from the initial injury, such as a blood clot or stroke, leading to a prolonged deterioration in health and eventually death, highlights the far-reaching consequences of the alleged malfunction.
The lawsuit further alleges that hotel employees were aware, or should have been aware, of the malfunctioning door, and that the hotel failed to comply with safety regulations. This raises questions about the hotel’s negligence and its responsibility for ensuring the safety of its guests. The assertion of prior knowledge of a faulty door raises the stakes significantly, suggesting a potential disregard for safety protocols and guest well-being.
The relatively low monetary damages sought in the lawsuit—initially reported as $15,000—has sparked discussion. Some believe this figure is insufficient to cover the true costs of the loss, extending beyond simple funeral expenses to encompass the immeasurable value of a life lost and the suffering endured by the family. This low amount may reflect a strategic legal approach, potentially aiming to increase the chances of a settlement rather than proceeding with a longer, more expensive trial process. The possibility that this initial sum is merely a threshold for a particular level of lawsuit or is stated as “in excess of” a specific amount is a credible explanation for the relatively low amount requested.
The incident highlights the often-overlooked dangers associated with seemingly mundane features of modern buildings, like revolving doors. The inherent design of a revolving door, while generally functional and convenient, creates a potential hazard when mechanical failure occurs. This case underscores the need for regular maintenance and safety checks of such equipment to mitigate potential risks to visitors. The potential involvement of both the manufacturer and maintenance personnel adds layers of complexity to assigning responsibility for the tragic outcome.
The case also raises broader questions concerning the maintenance and safety standards within the Trump organization. Allegations of negligence and disregard for safety regulations resonate with previously reported instances of alleged cost-cutting measures within the Trump organization, leading to potentially hazardous conditions. These claims paint a picture of a potentially systemic problem rather than an isolated incident.
The comments surrounding the case vary widely, from expressing sympathy for the victim and her family to questioning the adequacy of the damages claimed. Others question the causality between the initial injury and the eventual death, while others focus on the potential legal ramifications and the burden of proof in such cases. The combination of factors surrounding the incident and the lawsuit makes this a complex and highly debated case.
The details of the lawsuit’s arguments regarding negligence, liability, and damages will determine the outcome. Ultimately, the court’s decision will provide clarity on the legal ramifications of this tragic accident and set a precedent for future incidents involving similar malfunctions. The case serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of maintaining safety standards in commercial buildings, especially in high-traffic areas, to prevent similar tragedies from happening again.