Gress v. Lakhani Hospitality, Inc.
110 N.E.3d 251
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Oct. 2, 2013 Karla Gress, a paying guest at the Skokie Holiday Inn (owned/managed by Lakhani Hospitality, Inc. (LHI) and Mansoor Lakhani), was allegedly drugged, rendered unconscious, and raped in her hotel room by employee Alhagie Singhateh, a security guard/handyman who had a key card to guest rooms.
- Plaintiffs alleged hotel management directed Singhateh to enter Karla’s room to repair an air conditioner after being told she was intoxicated; DNA later linked Singhateh to the assault.
- The fourth-amended complaint asserted premises-liability claims (innkeeper duty) against LHI, Lakhani, and hotel director Sheila Gilani; negligent hiring/retention and negligent training/supervision claims against Hostmark and franchisor Intercontinental; and assault claims against Singhateh.
- The trial court dismissed the premises-liability counts and the negligent-hiring/ supervision counts under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and entered a Rule 304(a) finding; plaintiffs appealed interlocutorily.
- The appellate court reversed dismissal as to LHI, Lakhani, and Gilani, holding the complaint adequately alleged an innkeeper–guest special-relationship duty and that the sexual assault was foreseeable enough at the pleading stage; it affirmed dismissal of claims against Intercontinental and Hostmark for lack of possessory/control and insufficient nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of duty under innkeeper–guest special relationship | Gress: hotel owed heightened duty to protect guests from third‑party criminal acts given hotel control and conduct (sent employee into intoxicated guest’s room) | Lakhani: no duty because no prior similar sexual assaults by employee; unforeseeable | Held: Duty existed at pleading stage via special relationship; foreseeability for duty satisfied (Marshall governs); dismissal reversed |
| Foreseeability / proximate cause of rape | Gress: facts (drugging, employee key access, hotel directing entry, hotel culture of crime) alleged sufficient foreseeability and causation for jury | Lakhani: prior incidents were not sufficiently similar; cannot foresee this specific crime | Held: Foreseeability need only be of the general character of harm; plaintiffs pleaded facts creating a factual issue for jury on breach and proximate cause |
| Liability of franchisor (Intercontinental) under premises liability | Gress: franchisor can be liable for hotel guest harm tied to franchise operations | Intercontinental: not a possessor/controller of premises; no special relationship with guest | Held: Affirmed dismissal — no allegation Intercontinental possessed or controlled the premises; no special relationship shown |
| Negligent hiring/retention and negligent supervision (Hostmark/Intercontinental) | Gress: employers failed to discover or address Singhateh’s prior arrest/records and thus were negligent in hiring/retaining/supervising | Hostmark/Intercontinental: remote solicitation arrest years earlier lacks nexus to this rape; franchisor not employer; no authority imputed | Held: Affirmed dismissal — plaintiffs failed to plead requisite nexus or that franchisor/employer status existed or negligence proximately caused rape |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (Ill. 2006) (special-relationship/business-invitor duty can impose affirmative duty to protect against third-party acts; general foreseeability suffices at pleading stage)
- Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill. 2d 78 (Ill. 2007) (recognizes foreseeability requirement in special-relationship duty context)
- Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass’n, 195 Ill. 2d 210 (Ill. 2000) (special relationship does not alone impose duty; foreseeability also required)
- Danile v. Oak Park Arms Hotel, Inc., 55 Ill. App. 2d 2 (Ill. App. Ct. 1964) (hotel liable where employee’s access to keys and staff failures made assault foreseeable)
- Mrzlak v. Ettinger, 25 Ill. App. 3d 706 (Ill. App. Ct.) (foreseeability of third‑party assault may be question for jury where locale and prior crime evidence exist)
- Anicich v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 852 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2017) (employer/supervisory authority can create duty where supervisor’s unfitness makes employee’s criminal acts foreseeable)
- Virginia D. v. Madesco Investment Corp., 648 S.W.2d 881 (Mo. 1983) (hotel liable where licentious conditions and other crimes made assault foreseeable; court refused to require prior identical crime)