## Facts

- Marcella A. Connolly was walking on the public sidewalk on Nicollet Avenue adjacent to The Nicollet Hotel in Minneapolis around midnight on June 12, 1953.
- The hotel served as headquarters for a large convention attended by more than 4,000 young men, with several hundred staying as hotel guests.
- The hotel permitted liquor to be sold and dispensed without charge at “hospitality centers” throughout the building during the convention.
- Over multiple days, hotel management had notice of disorderly conduct associated with convention guests, including property damage, objects thrown from upper floors, and debris (broken glasses and bottles) littering hallways and nearby areas.
- As Connolly walked along the sidewalk after leaving the hotel, she heard an explosive sound, saw an object strike the sidewalk ahead of her, looked upward, and was struck in the left eye by a mud-like substance falling from above.
- Connolly permanently lost the sight in her left eye.
- The defendants presented no evidence; the case went to the jury on Connolly’s proof.

## Issues

1. Whether a hotelkeeper who knows or has reason to know of a danger of injury to passers-by from acts of transient guests has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent such injury.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find the hotel breached its duty of reasonable care and proximately caused Connolly’s injury, making judgment notwithstanding the verdict improper.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The court reinstated the jury’s \$30,000 verdict for Connolly against the hotel.
- The court held that the evidence allowed a jury to find the hotel had notice of disorderly guest conduct creating a foreseeable risk to sidewalk pedestrians and failed to take reasonable precautions.
- The court concluded that identifying the specific wrongdoer or the precise mechanism of the falling substance was not required if the general risk of such injury was reasonably foreseeable.

## Legal Principles

- A hotelkeeper who knows or has reason to know of danger of injury to passers-by from acts of transient guests must take reasonable steps to avoid such injury.
- One who assembles a large crowd on the premises for financial gain must use reasonable care to protect others from injuries reasonably anticipated, including providing sufficient guards or attendants and precautions to control crowd conduct; adequacy is ordinarily for the jury.
- Common-law duty turns on the probability of injury; risks reasonably perceived within the range of apprehension define the duty owed.
- Foreseeability does not require notice of the particular method of injury if the possibility of an accident would be clear to a person of ordinary prudence.
- The standard of care is constant, but the degree of care required varies with the circumstances, including risks associated with liquor service and crowd behavior.
- On review of JNOV, evidence must be viewed most favorably to the verdict; if reasonable minds could differ on negligence and causation, the jury’s verdict controls.

## Conclusion

The court held that a hotel that for profit hosts a large, alcohol-fueled convention and has notice of ongoing disorder may be found negligent for failing to take reasonable precautions to protect pedestrians on an adjacent public sidewalk from foreseeable injuries caused by guest misconduct, and it therefore reinstated the jury’s verdict for the injured pedestrian.


Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 254 Minn. 373, 95 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1959)