Westin Operator, LLC v. Groh
347 P.3d 606
Colo.2015Background
- In March 2007 Jillian Groh rented a Westin hotel room, returned late with a large group and became involved in a noise-related confrontation with hotel security.
- Hotel security evicted Groh and some companions after being told the group was drunk; Groh and others said they could not drive.
- A guard barred re‑entry when the group asked to wait in the lobby for a taxi; the group went to the parking garage and seven people squeezed into Groh’s PT Cruiser.
- The driver (not Groh) was intoxicated and later caused a high‑speed collision ~15 miles from the Westin that killed one passenger and left Groh with catastrophic brain injuries.
- Groh sued the Westin for negligence and negligent hiring/training; the trial court granted summary judgment on duty grounds, the court of appeals reversed, and the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a hotel owes a duty of care to a guest during a lawful eviction | Groh: innkeeper–guest special relationship imposes an affirmative duty; evicting an intoxicated guest into foreseeable danger is negligent | Westin: special relationship ends at eviction/property line; no duty to control guests after lawful ejection | A hotel owes a duty to exercise reasonable care when evicting guests; it must not evict an intoxicated guest into a foreseeably dangerous environment |
| Scope of that duty—how to determine foreseeably dangerous environment | Groh: hotel knew guests were intoxicated and should have ensured safe egress or transport | Westin: burden is on guest; hotel need not provide or ensure transportation; eviction lawfully ends its obligations | Scope depends on guest’s condition and external conditions (time, surroundings, weather); courts should use causation and fact‑specific analysis to limit liability |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on negligence and negligent hiring/training claims | Groh: factual disputes exist about degree of intoxication, taxi availability, training, weather, and knowledge — precluding summary judgment | Westin: undisputed facts (taxis visible, guest discussed taxis, lawful eviction) justify summary judgment | Summary judgment reversed as genuine issues of material fact exist on breach and training/hiring; cases should proceed to factfinder |
| Whether Colorado Dram Shop Act applies | N/A for plaintiff (no dram shop claim vs Westin) but Westin argues Act should preclude common‑law liability | Westin: Act displaces common‑law liability for vendors/providers of alcohol and limits exposure | Dram Shop Act does not apply because Westin did not sell, serve, or provide alcohol; Act does not bar negligence claims against non‑providers |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P.2d 54 (Colo. 1987) (recognizes "special relationships" that can create affirmative duties)
- HealthONE v. Rodriguez, 50 P.3d 879 (Colo. 2002) (sets multi‑factor test for duty analysis in Colorado)
- Burchmore v. Antlers Hotel Co., 130 P. 846 (Colo. 1913) (early Colorado recognition of innkeeper duty of reasonable care)
- McCoy v. Millville Traction Co., 85 A. 358 (N.J. 1912) (carrier ejection cases: cannot eject passenger at time/place that is dangerous)
- Rodriguez v. Primadonna Co., 216 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2009) (hotel must act reasonably when evicting guests)