Ellis v. Luxbury Hotels, Inc.
716 N.E.2d 359
Ind.
1999
Check Treatment

*1 ELLIS, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), HOTELS, INC., Appellee

LUXBURY

(Defendant Below), (Third- Wallin, Appellee

Michael Defendant).

Party

No. 01S02-9909-CV-485. of Indiana.

Supreme Court Beers, Mailers, Vegeler,

Robert Owen Indiana, Salin, At- Backs & Appellant. torney for Lisher, Lisher, Hiner & John Osborn Indiana, Attorney Appel- Indianapolis, lee.

360 him, clerk gave

ON CIVIL PETITION desk C.W.’s room number. room, FOR TRANSFER C.W.’s husband went to C.W.’s in, way forced his and Ellis. assaulted SELBY, J. (“Ellis”) negli Ellis brought DISCUSSION gence against Luxbury action Hotels The issue this case revolves (“Luxbury”) damages seeking personal for Luxbury plain around whether owed injuries he visiting sustained while he was tiff pro care claimed, a guest Luxbury. among Ellis tect from the foreseeable criminal things, Luxbury’s other negligence party. acts of this third There is much injuries.1 claim, his caused his Ellis dispute guest that a hotel is at least the alleged duty, him Luxbury owed and, equivalent of a business invitee as duty, and that breached such, is entitled to of reasonable injuries. the breach resulted in his Lux guest’s safety. v. Rocoff bury sought tri The Lancella, 440, Ind.App. 145 251 N.E.2d granted al summary judgment court for (1969). 582, case, however, 585 and Appeals af Court injury was to of a guest guest. We are firmed on all counts. See Ellis v. unable to find Indiana eases concern (Ind.Ct.App. 666 N.E.2d 1262 by guest 1996). Ellis for transfer to this of a guest. unnecessary While it for the now grant Court. We transfer to address resolution of by we can reason liability issue of whether analogy from dealing cases provide landlord , owes to tenant. reasonable protection invitees Indiana held numerous times foreseeable criminal acts of parties. “landlord owes his tenants’ social We properly trial court the same as the landlord owes granted summary judgment. Hargitt, his tenants.” Dickison 611 691, (Ind.Ct.App.1993); see FACTS (Ind.Ct. State, Slusher v. On December assume, App.1982). Thus, we will without Indiana, a woman named C.W. deciding, that Ellis was entitled as a at a operated hotel owned and reasonable care for his Luxbury Hotels, Inc. there- Sometime after, woman, Ellis visited the invi- invitee, at her Assuming Ellis is an tation, in her room at the hotel. In the the issue is whether owed Ellis a early 16, 1989, morning of December duty to take protect reasonable care to man lobby came into the represented and party this third criminal attack. himself to the desk clerk as the question by brother The Court asking answers C.W. He told the desk clerk that his totality whether the of the circumstances sister a guest demonstrates that the crime in help called car reasonably because of explained foreseeable. As was, fact, trouble. The Johnson, man in Delta Tau Delta deter He did unusually husband. not act mining totality whether the of the circum any indication that he would vio- supports imposition become stances a for, lent. C.W.’s husband asked and the a court must look to “all of the circum- complaint alleged though breach of the treat the as issues all counts of par- criminal acts of a third complaint ruled were the trial ty, rights, privacy breach of and court, breach it seems that Luxbury’s to us motion contract. The entirely record is not as clear summary judgment was confined to the disposed what issues were premises liability issue. summary judgment. Although event, including CONCLUSION surrounding stances nature, condition, location of affirm the trial court’s of sum- land, similar well as as mary judgment neg- to Ellis’s a criminal act was fore- whether determine summarily ligence claim. We also affirm *3 (Ind.1999). 968, 972 seeable.” Appeals’ the Court of decision with in the determination “A factor substantial on appeal. to all other issues raised number, nature, and location duty of the lack of prior similar but of DICKSON, SHEPARD, C.J., and J. a preclude will not prior similar incidents concur. claim the landowner knew should where DICKSON, concurring, sepa- J. writes act fore- have that the criminal known SHEPARD, rately in which C.J. concurs. reviewing Id. at 973. When seeable.” BOEHM, separate- dissenting, writes J. evidence, mindful that must be SULLIVAN, in which J. concurs. ly duty no to insure invitee’s landowners have safety, but DICKSON, J., prevent concurring. criminal acts

to foreseeable against invitees. 'Id.2 majority opinion to I understand the that, present- on the materials based provides insufficient The record purposes summary judgment, of ed that evidence for us to hold finding not err in that Lux- did protect him this duty Ellis a to from duty had take bury no to no criminal act. There is unforeseeable care to reasonable incidents or other any criminal act involved in particular have that would alerted circumstances- respectfully disagree this case. In resulting to the criminal act. interpretation majority that dissent’s deed, employee that an the record shows duty to that the not holds hotel had at the hotel of the hotel who worked disclose a room number. un opened that she was since it testified agree every the dissent that hotel aware similar incidents. Ellis (and duty guests owes a provided In order evidence otherwise. favor, to steps to take reasonable to to rule in Ellis’s would have we safety against their preserve hold that a has an abso I also that the issue of lute to harm. take reasonable a to to be an whether it is unreasonable of its effect —in subject to guests’ guest’s we are room number insurer of the This an rather is issue of to blanket resolution but unwilling do. We hold principles, my a a fact for trial. But these premises did not have based on view, contrary to the theory, protect Ellis from are not liability to opinion. criminal act. unforeseeable dissent, Clanton, (Ala.1992) (f Boehm, 605 So.2d in his believes Justice indi ng to owed its innkeeper an affirmative hotel does an unregistered prevent or unauthorized third guest’s as one not to disclose a room number gaming guest’s necessary parties to steps from access of the reasonable unregistered guest's guest’s) safety, and abusive hus guest’s room when employee to admit is whether this band convinced hotel that the Also, room). au- wife's have found no him into was breached. theory liability, proposition an thority that stands for under only imposed act of innkeeper to dis- when criminal has an affirmative the circum parties, party is foreseeable. Under guest’s close number to third third room the fact that stances in although in some cases courts have found number to husband innkeeper disclosed acts husband’s criminal prevent gaining did not make her access See, e.g., City guest’s foreseeable. room. Thetford subject a jury question Uncontested issues fact are whether it a breach support its mo- of general duty take reasonable summary judgment, pre- tion preserve safety. Beckett of an employee stating sented an affidavit Corp., Clinton Prairie School (Ind.1987) (whether she worked the location since defendant ex- opened was “aware is a ercised reasonable care factual deter- of no other incident similar this one.” jury). mination for the plaintiff presented response, no evi- presents This case of other number tending dence show the hotel had may recovery. factors that bar Even if prior actual or knowledge constructive disclosure the room number under the foreseeable, risk of crime increased result- *4 circumstances was found to be unreason- providing room numbers. able, might the trier of fact well conclude I, therefore, causal chain was broken there upon is the record voluntary opening door the in- which the trial could judge have found that Nonetheless, I habitants. would not had a duty, the hotel based on a summary judgment on the basis of the liability theory, plaintiff duty. absence of Hotel should be this case. rely able to on taking their host’s reason- protection. able for their

SHEPARD, C.J., concurs. BOEHM, J., dissenting. SULLIVAN, J., concurs. respectfully dissent. Although it probable seems to me that would

ultimately be against resolved

on grounds, one or more of several I do judgment ap believe

propriate on the basis the hotel owed duty.

Ellis no I am not contending as the

majority suggests, that there is out giving refrain from numbers In the Matter of Charles W. LAHEY. Rather, all my view, circumstances. No. 71S00-9405-DI-449. every operator of a hotel has a to take rea Supreme Court of Indiana. sonable safety harms. See Burrell v. Meads, (Ind.1991) ORDER GRANTING PETITION (“landowner highest to an FOR REINSTATEMENT invitee: a to exercise reasonable care while he petitioner, suspended is on the land attorney premises”); owner’s see also Lahey, Charles W. Restatement 314A(2) § (1997); 40 Court for (Second) reinstatement the Bar of this of Torts (1999) (a § 110 state. The Indiana Supreme Court Disci- Am.Jur.2d right rely plinary Commission, belief that its reviewing after find- exercising reasonable care his or ings fact conclusions of law submit- safety). it Whether unreasonable ted hearing officer who conducted is, room number of guest evidentiary petitioner’s it hearing pe- me, susceptible seems to reinstatement, blanket tition for has recommended resolution, which holding petitioner effect of this Court rein- be not to disclose stated. now This matter is us for before Rather, room number. think final would it resolution.