110 N.E.3d 375
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Maurice Johnson and his wife checked into Blue Chip Casino Hotel Room 1253 on Jan. 1, 2017; they slept in separate beds and did not see bugs when turning down sheets.
- Johnson woke the next morning with bites, observed a live bed bug on his pillow and two shed bug shells; staff preserved a live bug and had belongings treated; Johnson sought ER treatment.
- Blue Chip’s Safety/Loss Prevention Manager testified the hotel trains staff to inspect rooms daily for bed bugs, strips beds to inspect mattresses, inspects nooks and crannies, and uses professional pest control when bugs are found.
- Room 1253 had a prior bed-bug complaint on Nov. 4, 2016; Terminix treated the room and it was held out of service until Nov. 11, 2016; no further complaints were received before Johnson’s stay.
- Johnson sued in small-claims court alleging negligence/premises liability; the small-claims court found for Blue Chip, rejecting Johnson’s res ipsa loquitur argument; Johnson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur | Presence of bed bugs in the hotel room allows an inference of negligence by the innkeeper | Hotel had exclusive control but followed reasonable inspection/treatment policies; bed bugs can be brought in by guests and hide out of plain view | Res ipsa loquitur does not apply; plaintiff failed to show the infestation more probably resulted from hotel negligence rather than other causes |
| Premises liability / notice | Hotel is responsible as invitee host and should have prevented the infestation | Hotel lacked actual or constructive knowledge of bed bugs on the relevant dates and followed reasonable procedures | Plaintiff failed to prove actual or constructive knowledge; no liability under premises theory |
Key Cases Cited
- LTL Truck Serv., LLC v. Safeguard, Inc., 817 N.E.2d 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standard for reversing a negative judgment on appeal)
- Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Lardydell, 8 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (defines res ipsa loquitur and its evidentiary role)
- Rector v. Oliver, 809 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (elements and burden under res ipsa loquitur)
- Cergnul v. Heritage Inn of Ind., Inc., 785 N.E.2d 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (res ipsa loquitur may fail where innocent explanations exist)
- Cleary v. Manning, 884 N.E.2d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (plaintiff may use common sense or expert testimony to show negligence more probable)
- Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. 2013) (guest-status as invitee under premises-liability principles)
- Roumbos v. Vazanellis, 95 N.E.3d 63 (Ind. 2018) (Restatement § 343 standard for invitee protection)
- Schultz v. Kroger Co., 963 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (actual or constructive knowledge required for owner liability)