Beckwith v.
Interstate Mgmt. Co., L.L.C., 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25799 (2015).
The
United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently entered
summary judgment in favor of a hotel management company in an action filed by a
hotel guest that was assaulted on the premises. The Court’s primary negligence
analysis centered on the hotel management company’s duty, including the
foreseeability of the assault and the relationship between a hotel and its
guest.
In
Beckwith, Plaintiff Connor Beckwith
(“Beckwith”) and his family were patrons of the Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel (“the
hotel”) in Washington, D.C. The hotel was managed by Defendant Interstate
Management Company, L.L.C. (“Interstate”), and Interstate’s duties included,
but were not limited to, providing security at the hotel. It is important to
note from the outset that, based on crime statistics proffered by Beckwith, the
hotel is in an area where criminal activity is at a high, with five hundred and
forty-two (542) violent crimes and four thousand, one hundred and seventy-one
(4,171) property crimes reported from 2007 to 2009 within a half-mile radius of
the hotel.
On
June 28, 2009, Beckwith traversed to the lower level of the hotel lobby to
utilize the restroom. When he reached the lower level, he encountered Anthony
Lopez (“Lopez”) who began a conversation with Beckwith and walked alongside him
towards the restroom. As Beckwith proceeded towards the restroom, and once he
was in the restroom, Lopez inappropriately touched him without his consent on
two (2) separate occasions. Ultimately, Beckwith asked Lopez to leave, and
reported the incident to his family, who immediately alerted the hotel’s front
desk. The hotel’s security used its numerous security cameras to locate and
ultimately arrest Lopez who was dining in the hotel restaurant. Deposition
testimony established that the hotel’s security director was the only member of
the security staff on duty at the day and time of the incident.
Beckwith
filed a one-count complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia against Interstate, alleging that it was negligent in its
maintenance of security at the hotel, and in its response to the assault.
Following discovery, Interstate filed a motion for summary judgment on the
basis that Beckwith’s evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of a
negligence claim.
The
Court applied D.C. tort law, which indicates that when a plaintiff alleges that
a defendant negligently failed to prevent a harmful, criminal act by a third
party, he or she must prove that the act was so foreseeable that it became the
defendant’s duty to guard against it by complying with the applicable standard
of care. Clement v. Peoples Drug Store,
634 A.2d 425, 427 (D.C. 1993). D.C. employs a “sliding scale” analysis in these
types of cases, involving two (2) elements: (1) the criminal act’s
foreseeability; and (2) the degree to which the defendant owes a “greater duty
of protection” by nature of his relationship to the plaintiff. Bd. of Trs. v. DiSalvo, 974 A.2d 868,
872 (D.C. 2009) (citing Workman v. United
Methodist Comm. on Relief of Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries of the United
Methodist Church, 320 F.3d 259, 264 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). If the plaintiff
fails to establish a protective or “special” relationship, he or she must make
a “heightened showing” of the foreseeability of the criminal act to establish
duty. Id. Alternatively, if a special
relationship between the parties is proven, plaintiff’s burden to establish
foreseeability is lightened, but not eliminated. Id.
First,
the Court found that a special relationship existed between the parties
sufficient to lighten Beckwith’s burden to prove foreseeability, and that
Interstate had a duty to use reasonable care to protect Beckwith from
foreseeable, injurious criminal acts committed by a third party. See Kline v. 1500 Mass. Ave. Apt. Corp.,
439 F.2d 477 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (holding that a “greater duty of protection” is
owed when an innkeeper-guest relationship is proven due to a plaintiff’s
necessary reliance on the hotel’s staff for security).
Turning
next to the foreseeability of Lopez’s actions, the Court examined the evidence,
or lack thereof, proffered by Beckwith in support of his claims. Beckwith
relied solely on the crime statistics mentioned above to establish that it was
foreseeable that an intruder would enter the premises. The Court rejected
Beckwith’s argument, stating that to hold as such would be tantamount to
holding that any assault in any area with a high crime rate would automatically
be foreseeable. The Court also pointed out that Beckwith did not present any
evidence to demonstrate that Lopez was actually an intruder in the hotel, and
that Lopez’s location upon arrest, in the hotel’s restaurant, suggested
otherwise. Lastly, the Court pointed out that the hotel did not have a history
of prior sexual assaults.
As
a secondary determination, the Court interestingly concluded that, even if the
assault on Beckwith was foreseeable, he had failed to present sufficient
evidence to establish the standard of care owed by Interstate. In support of
his argument, Beckwith cited to expert testimony from Andre Street, who was
presented as an expert on hotel security. The Court deemed Mr. Street’s
testimony to be a vague generalization of applicable hotel security standards,
and held that Beckwith’s lack of adequate expert testimony on the standard of
care was “fatal” to his negligence claim under D.C. law. See Briggs v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 481 F.3d 839 (D.C.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (stating that lack of evidence sufficient to
establish a standard of care is “fatal to a negligence claim”).
Beckwith solidifies applicable D.C.
premises liability law regarding the requisite evidence for a plaintiff to
prove liability on the part of a landowner for the negligent failure to prevent
injurious, criminal acts by a third party. One cannot simply rely on the
location of the hotel to establish one’s case, and notice is essential, even
when a special relationship, and correspondingly heightened duty, is owed. Further,
Beckwith highlights the importance of
expert testimony in a premises liability action, and demonstrates that mere
conjecture on the part of an expert will not suffice to establish the standard
of care owed in a premises liability action. The attorneys at RSRM have handled
numerous premises liability actions, including the defense of hotels,
nightclubs, and large stadiums.
- Contributed by Catherine A.B. Simanski
