## Facts

- Dula McCarty, a 58-year-old business traveler, stayed as a guest at a resort hotel in Illinois while attending a company meeting.
- Her second-floor room had a sliding glass door with a lock and a safety chain opening onto a walkway with access to a courtyard open to the public.
- After returning to her room at night, McCarty was attacked by an unidentified masked intruder who beat her and threatened sexual assault; she resisted and the intruder fled.
- Investigation indicated the sliding door had been closed but not locked, was pried from outside, and the safety chain was broken during entry.
- McCarty alleged relatively minor physical injuries but claimed severe emotional distress and that the incident contributed to early retirement.
- She claimed the hotel negligently failed to provide reasonable security, including alleged shortcomings in door-locking practices, lock design, warnings to guests, and other potential security measures (lighting, guards, alarms).

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may obtain judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the defendant’s negligence without having moved for a directed verdict on that issue at trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).
2. Whether the evidence required a finding that the hotel breached its duty of reasonable care to protect a guest from third-party criminal attack under Illinois negligence law.
3. Whether evidentiary exclusions and alleged instructional errors warranted reversal and a new trial.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Pheasant Run.
- The court held McCarty was procedurally barred from obtaining JNOV on negligence because she did not move for a directed verdict on the hotel’s negligence, as required by Rule 50(b).
- Independently, the court held the record did not compel a finding of negligence as a matter of law; the jury could rationally find the hotel’s precautions satisfied reasonable care.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 50(b) motion for JNOV (renewed judgment as a matter of law) is unavailable unless the movant first made a Rule 50(a) directed-verdict motion on the same issue.
- Under Illinois negligence law, premises owners and innkeepers owe reasonable care, not absolute protection, against third-party criminal acts.
- Whether additional security precautions are required ordinarily presents a fact question for the jury unless the evidence permits only one conclusion.
- A plaintiff seeking to establish negligent security as a matter of law must present concrete evidence that specific additional precautions were reasonably available and that their burden was justified in relation to the risk and expected harm.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over evidentiary relevance and the framing of instructions; reversal requires prejudicial error, not merely arguable imperfections.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a defense verdict in a negligent-security suit because the plaintiff’s failure to move for a directed verdict on negligence barred JNOV under Rule 50(b), and in any event the evidence allowed the jury to find the hotel exercised reasonable care and that proposed additional precautions were not shown to be required.


McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc., 826 F.2d 1554 (7th Cir. 1987)