102 N.E.3d 895
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Amber Cosgray attended a work party at French Lick Resort, checked into Room 1504, and received hotel safety instructions and access to three locking devices for her door.
- After a night of drinking, Cosgray propped her door open with the rasp safety lock so a colleague could join her later and fell asleep with the door not fully closed.
- Approximately two hours later an unknown man (later identified as Javier Urbano Uribe) entered the room and raped Cosgray; the attacker had been allowed onto the premises by an employee, Summer Andrews.
- Cosgray sued French Lick Resort for negligence, vicarious liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the resort, holding that the resort did not owe a duty to protect Cosgray from such a criminal attack under the foreseeability analysis.
- Cosgray appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on duty (foreseeability) rather than proximate cause or totality-of-circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the resort owed a duty to protect Cosgray from a criminal attack by a third party while on premises with her door intentionally left unlocked | Cosgray argued the resort should have a duty to protect overnight guests from foreseeable criminal attacks, given the casino/hotel setting and prior incidents | French Lick Resort argued that such a sexual attack by another invitee is not a foreseeable harm that imposes a duty, particularly where the guest left her door unsecured | Court held no duty as a matter of law — the criminal attack was not foreseeable in the duty-context, so summary judgment for the resort was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (foreseeability in duty analysis requires a generalized inquiry; totality-of-circumstances test is inappropriate for duty)
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (landowner duty to invitees exists but is limited by foreseeability of criminal acts)
- Jones v. Wilson, 81 N.E.3d 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (applies Goodwin/Rogers foreseeability framework to conclude no duty for a random criminal attack)