152 So. 3d 1039
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- June and Sudhir Finch stayed at Hilton Hotel in Shreveport; Sudhir was arrested for domestic abuse in the early hours of March 23, 2012.
- June Finch, appearing pro se, sued HRI Lodging, Inc. for negligence related to the hotel’s security and handling of domestic disputes.
- A hotel security officer investigated an initial noise complaint; June sustained facial injuries after her husband’s alleged assault later, while in the hotel room.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on Sept. 27, 2013; plaintiff faxed an opposing affidavit/memo on Nov. 26, 2013.
- The trial court struck the untimely opposition; granted summary judgment, finding no duty or breach by hotel.
- Court affirmed summary judgment, holding no duty to protect against the unforeseen criminal act of a guest’s spouse and no breach under duty-risk analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by striking the late opposition | Finch asserts proper attempt to comply; no prejudice; pro se latitude. | Opposition was untimely under Art. 966(B)(1) and Rule 9.9(b). | No abuse of discretion; opposition struck |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the duty-risk analysis | Hotel breached duty in supervising/security and protecting guests. | No duty to protect against unforeseeable acts by third parties; no breach shown. | Affirmed summary judgment; no duty breached |
| Whether innkeeper owes duty to protect guests from third-party criminal acts | Hotel failed to protect from third-party criminal acts. | Innkeepers owe prudent security but not for unforeseeable acts; no foreseeability here. | Duty not present; no liability |
| Whether the hotel’s security officer had a duty to act beyond initial investigation | Officer’s failure to prevent later harm constitutes breach. | Officer had no knowledge of imminent threat; no breach established. | No breach; no liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Kraaz v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 410 So.2d 1048 (La. 1982) (innkeeper duty to protect guests from criminal third parties)
- Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, 752 So.2d 762 (La. 1999) (duty to protect against foreseeable third-party criminal acts)
- Dye v. Schwegmann Brothers Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 627 So.2d 688 (La. 1994) (security duty not universal; must be reasonable to prevent crime)
- Cangiano v. Forte Hotels, Inc., 772 So.2d 879 (La. 2000) (duty limited to foreseeable threats; not all crimes)
- Banks v. Hyatt Corp., 122 F.2d 214 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1984) (security duty tied to foreseeability)
- Millet ex rel. Millet v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., 844 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2003) (duty-risk framework; foreseeability critical)