Alex L. Benninghoven and Bryan T. Sloan v. Hawkeye Hotels, Inc., Dm River Lodging, Inc., and Hawkeye Hotels Hospitality Management, Inc.
16-1374
Iowa Ct. App.Jun 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Benninghoven and Sloan were guests at the Residence Inn in Des Moines; they were assaulted off‑premises and after Morrow (a desk clerk) finished his shift.
- Morrow was hired April 4, 2014 after an application in which he denied convictions; defendants ran a background check but did not discover his prior misdemeanor convictions for theft, OWI, trespass, criminal mischief, and two assaults.
- At ~2:30 a.m. plaintiffs encountered Morrow about a block from the hotel; after approaching him (because they recognized him as the desk clerk) Morrow and others assaulted and robbed them.
- Plaintiffs sued the hotel owners/managers for general negligence and negligent hiring/retention/training, alleging the hotel should have discovered Morrow’s violent history.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding as a matter of law the employer owed no duty for intentional torts by an off‑duty, off‑premises employee; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the employee’s off‑duty, off‑premises assault was not within the hotel’s duty/scope of liability under the facts presented (acts were personal, extraneous to employment, and not fairly attributable to hotel business).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hotel owed a general duty to protect guests from off‑duty employee’s intentional off‑premises assault | Hotel’s negligent hiring created a risk to guests; general duty under Restatement (Third) §7(a) applies | Employer lacks control over off‑duty, off‑premises conduct; public policy bars imposing such a duty | No duty as a matter of law under these facts — affirmed |
| Whether negligent hiring/training/retention claims can reach off‑duty acts | Employer’s failure to discover assaultive history made injuries foreseeable and within scope of negligent hiring liability | Negligent‑hiring liability requires a connection to employment; here conduct was personal and extraneous | Employer’s hiring/training duties do not encompass this off‑duty, off‑premises robbery/assault under these facts |
| Foreseeability as basis to deny duty vs. no‑duty rule | Foreseeability and case‑by‑case analysis under Restatement §6 should govern | A countervailing policy (lack of control) justifies a categorical no‑duty ruling here | Court relied on control/policy rationale rather than purely foreseeability; no duty found |
| Scope of employer liability for third‑party assaults occurring off premises | Hotel’s special relationship with guests can sometimes extend off premises; plaintiffs point to precedents recognizing limited off‑premises liability | Those precedents are limited to situations where harm arose in the course of the innkeeper–guest relation (e.g., eviction process) | Off‑premises liability possible in narrow circumstances, but those are not present here; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. Nikkel & Assocs., Inc., 819 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 2012) (control principle and public‑policy considerations can negate duty)
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (framework for when general duty may be displaced in exceptional cases)
- Godar v. Edwards, 588 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa 1999) (elements of negligent hiring liability)
- Hoyt v. Gutterz Bowl & Lounge L.L.C., 829 N.W.2d 772 (Iowa 2013) (recognition of employer duties for hiring/training/supervision under Restatement (Third))
- Westin Operator L.L.C. v. Groh, 347 P.3d 606 (Colo. 2015) (hotel can be liable off premises where risk of harm arises in course of innkeeper–guest relation, e.g., during eviction)