880 N.W.2d 43
Neb.2016Background
- McReynolds took an all-inclusive vacation booked by Ultimate Cruise and Vacation, Inc. and The Mark Travel Corporation (Funjet). Her hotel room in Puerto Vallarta used a room key engraved with the room number and an in-room safe that required a separate key.
- A travel companion warned her not to keep the safe key with the room key; she nevertheless hid the safe key in her room before leaving. On return the safe had been opened (drilled) and jewelry and cash were stolen.
- McReynolds sued the travel companies (and hotel owners) asserting negligence for failure to warn about the hotel’s key system and breach of contract for failing to provide a secure room.
- The travel companies moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits that their services were limited to booking and that they did not undertake to protect her property; McReynolds submitted an affidavit describing an on-site representative and pre-trip communications but pointed to no contract language promising security.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the companies, ruling (1) even if the companies were agents they had no duty to warn of the obvious risk posed by the key system, (2) McReynolds’ own negligence and the intentional criminal act superseded any company negligence, and (3) no contract evidence showed the companies promised to secure her jewelry. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn (negligence) | Companies, as travel agents/special agents, owed duty to disclose hotel’s defective key system that increased theft risk | Even if agents, no duty to warn of obvious/apparent dangers; services were limited to booking | No duty to warn because the danger (room number on key + in-room safe key) was obvious |
| Causation / superseding conduct | Companies’ failure to warn caused theft of jewelry | McReynolds’ own choice to hide the safe key in the room and a third party’s intentional theft supersede any company negligence | McReynolds’ conduct and the criminal act superseded any alleged negligence; summary judgment proper |
| Breach of contract — duty to provide secure room | Contract included an implied duty to provide a secure room free from criminal acts | Companies contracted only to book travel; no evidence they promised security or undertook protective duties | No evidence of contractual term imposing security obligation; summary judgment proper |
| Whether factual disputes (special agency, services provided) preclude summary judgment | McReynolds argued existence of on-site representative and pre-trip communications create factual disputes about duties | Companies’ uncontroverted affidavits limited services to booking, shifting burden; McReynolds produced no contract terms | Even assuming agency, legal rule (no duty to warn of obvious dangers) resolves negligence; lack of contract evidence resolves contract claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Wrenshall, 284 Neb. 445 (Neb. 2012) (duty and negligence principles; definition of duty)
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (Neb. 2010) (no-duty determinations under Restatement (Third) §7; policy basis for denying duty)
- Hofer v. Gap, Inc., 516 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D. Mass. 2007) (online booking agent had no duty to warn of hazards equally observable to traveler)
- McCollum v. Friendly Hills Travel Ctr., 172 Cal. App. 3d 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (travel agent did not breach duty by failing to warn about obviously unsafe equipment/conditions)