Facts
- Karla Gress was a paying guest at the Holiday Inn Chicago–Skokie, which was owned and/or managed by Lakhani Hospitality, Inc. and its principal, Mansoor Lakhani (collectively, LHI).
- Alhagie Singhateh worked at the hotel as a security guard and also performed maintenance tasks.
- While Gress ate and drank in the hotel’s restaurant-lounge, Singhateh allegedly slipped a narcotic into her drink.
- Another LHI employee allegedly directed Singhateh to go to Gress’s room to repair the air conditioner, knowing Gress was intoxicated.
- Singhateh allegedly used a hotel key to enter Gress’s room and raped her while she was unconscious.
- Karla Gress and her husband, Dean Gress, sued LHI and on-site management personnel (including the hotel’s director of operations, Sheila Gilani), asserting premises-liability/negligence theories tied to the hotel-guest relationship and to LHI’s alleged handling and supervision of conditions and employees at the hotel.
- The complaint also alleged multiple prior incidents of “unseemly” or sexually inappropriate conduct at the property (including conduct involving Singhateh and others) and facts about Singhateh’s background, offered to show that LHI knew or should have known of a risk to guests.
- Plaintiffs also sued the franchisor entities (Intercontinental Hotels Group Operating Corporation and Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc.) and Hostmark Hospitality Group, Inc. (which plaintiffs alleged processed Singhateh’s initial job application), asserting negligent-employment and related theories.
- The trial court dismissed the premises-liability/negligence counts under section 2-615, reasoning (as to LHI and its managers) that the rape was not reasonably foreseeable because the alleged prior incidents did not include a prior sexual assault by Singhateh or another employee, and reasoning (as to Intercontinental and Hostmark) that the complaint did not allege possession of, or control over, the premises or hotel employees.
Issues
- Whether the complaint stated a viable premises-liability/negligence claim against LHI and its on-site management based on the innkeeper–guest relationship and allegations that LHI created or permitted a dangerous condition by giving a hotel employee access to an intoxicated guest’s room.
- Whether, at the pleading stage, the alleged sexual assault by a hotel employee was sufficiently foreseeable to support duty and proximate-cause allegations against LHI and its managers.
- Whether the complaint alleged facts showing that the franchisor entities and Hostmark owed any duty to plaintiffs, given the absence of allegations that they possessed or controlled the premises or had authority over day-to-day employee conduct.
Decision
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Reversed the dismissal of the premises-liability/negligence counts against LHI and its on-site management defendants, holding that the complaint adequately alleged a duty arising from the hotel-guest relationship and adequately alleged foreseeability at the pleadings stage.
- Affirmed the dismissal of the counts against the Intercontinental entities and Hostmark because they were not alleged to be possessors of the premises and were not alleged to have the ability or authority to control the activities of LHI’s employees.
Legal Principles
- A hotel (innkeeper) and its guest are in a special relationship that can impose a duty on the hotel to take reasonable measures to protect guests from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts, including criminal acts by hotel employees.
- In cases involving criminal conduct, foreseeability can be a fact-sensitive question; on a motion to dismiss, courts accept well-pleaded allegations as true and do not require proof of a prior identical crime to plead foreseeability.
- A party who takes charge of, or is responsible for controlling, another person whom it knows or should know is likely to cause bodily harm if not controlled may have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent that harm.
- Premises-liability duties generally rest on possession and control of the premises; entities that do not possess the property and lack authority over day-to-day operations and employee conduct ordinarily owe no premises-based duty to a guest injured by criminal acts at the property.
- Franchisor status or limited administrative involvement (such as processing an employment application) does not, without allegations of operational control or authority over employees, create a duty to protect hotel guests from employee misconduct.
Conclusion
The appellate court held that the Gresses’ allegations were enough at the pleading stage to pursue premises-liability/negligence claims against the hotel owner/operator and on-site management based on the innkeeper–guest relationship and the alleged risk created when an employee was sent to an intoxicated guest’s room and given access by key. At the same time, the court left intact the dismissal of claims against the franchisor entities and Hostmark because the complaint did not plausibly allege they possessed or controlled the hotel premises or had authority to control LHI employees’ conduct.