Thetford
v. City of Clanton, et al. (Supreme
Court of AL, 1992)
RULE
OF LAW: Innkeeper owes a duty to his guest to protect against
third-party criminal acts if the act was foreseeable, shown by
substantial evidence.
FACTS:
Shirley Ann Banks (P) checked into a hotel (D), telling the clerk
that she was hiding from her abusive husband. She requested that the
front desk to not tell anybody that she was there and to not let her
husband enter her room. P showed signs of physical abuse. Her husband
came to the hotel and P admitted him to her room. After her husband
left her room, she locked her door via the chain on the door. Her
husband asked the front desk manager to let him into the room,
claiming his wife was "sick or crazy." The manager, with
the police officer present, cut the chain to the door, allowing the
husband to enter the room. At this point, the husband stated that he
was going to kill Shirley Ann, later claiming he didn't really mean
that. He convinced Shirley Ann that he would take her to her mothers'
house. Later that night her husband fatally beat her at another
hotel. P is suing for damages.
With
regard to the police officer, the police officer initially called to
investigate an act of family violence (prior to P's hotel check-in)
did not file a report of the incident as required by law. The second
police officer that was present for the cutting of the chain also did
not file an incident report.
HISTORY:
Trial court entered a judgment for the defendants (the city and the
hotel). Plaintiff appealed.
ISSUE:
Did the hotel manager owe a duty to his guest to protect her from a
third party criminal act in her room? (Specifically, is D liable for
wrongful or unauthorized entry?)
Was
the police officer statutorily negligent for failing to file a family
violence investigation report as required by law?
HOLDING:
The court held that the hotel manager did not act reasonably and the
third party criminal act was foreseeable (making the hospital owe a
duty to the guest); the summary judgment for hotel defendants was
reversed.
The
court also affirmed the summary judgment for the city.
REASONING:
As a general rule, an innkeeper is liable if he unjustifiably or
unreasonably interferes with his guest's right to privacy and to the
peaceful enjoyment of his room. The court further stated that an
innkeeper does have a duty not to allow unregistered or unauthorized
third parties to gain access to the rooms of its guests. The court
determined that innkeepers owe an exercise of reasonable care for a
guests' safety. Reasonable care depends on the circumstances in this
case since it depends on the grade and quality of the accommodations
that a hotel offers. A main component of this standard of care
involves foreseeability. Because the innkeeper in this situation was
expressly warned about the possibility of a violent crime occurring
(showed by substantial evidence), he owed a duty to his guest. He can
be, therefore, liable for not protecting his guest. It was also noted
that the exact act doesn't have to be foreseeable, but rather a
general harm or consequence is what must/should have been
foreseeable.
Regarding
the city, P would have had to prove 1) the statute (family violence
act) was enacted to protect a class of persons in which P is
categorized, 2) the injury that occurred was contemplated by the
statute, 3) D violated the statute and 4) the statutory violation
proximately caused the injury. In this case the court concluded that
P couldn't prove the lack of written report proximately caused the
injury; the act does not provide any resources to help the victims of
this type of abuse. Since the elements can't be proven, a jury could
not conclude that the city was negligent.
DISCUSSION:
Dissenting opinion included an argument that the city did proximately
cause P's injuries/death because the second officer didn't have any
incident report, preventing him from doubting the husband's
intentions and allowing the husband to enter the room and leave with
Shirley Ann. Another dissenting opinion included an argument that the
cutting of the chain was reasonable if the innkeeper thought P was
sick; however, the innkeeper also should have re-secured her room,
which he failed to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment