## Facts

- Helen and Kenneth Montgomery rented a room at the Royal Motel in Las Vegas.
- An unknown assailant entered their room, assaulted them, and robbed them.
- The room door was not self-locking, but it had a working deadbolt lock.
- At the time of the attack, the door was not locked, although the Montgomerys claimed they ordinarily locked the door promptly after entering.
- The Montgomerys sued the Royal Motel for negligence, alleging the motel failed to provide reasonable security because it did not install a self-locking door (or otherwise provide additional protective measures).
- The motel produced evidence of a local “Housing Security Standards” ordinance requiring deadbolt locks for motel rooms with individual exterior entrances, and showing the ordinance did not require self-locking doors.
- Relying on the motel’s ordinance compliance, the trial court concluded the motel met the standard of care as a matter of law and dismissed the case.
- The Montgomerys appealed, arguing the ordinance was only a floor and did not prevent a negligence claim based on reasonable care requiring more than the ordinance specified.

## Issues

1. Does a motel’s compliance with a municipal deadbolt-lock ordinance conclusively establish due care, barring a guest’s negligence claim premised on the absence of additional security measures?
2. If the ordinance is satisfied, may a factfinder still decide that reasonable care required additional precautions, making dismissal or summary judgment improper?

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, absent a clear legislative intent to make the ordinance the exclusive measure of reasonable care, ordinance compliance does not automatically set the full standard of care in a negligence action.
- The ordinance could be considered evidence of reasonable care, but it did not, by itself, foreclose a claim that reasonable care under the circumstances required added security (such as a self-locking door).
- Because reasonable minds could differ on whether additional door security was required, the case could not be resolved as a matter of law based solely on ordinance compliance.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may look to legislative enactments or regulations when defining a negligence standard of conduct, but adoption of such enactments as the complete standard depends on the enactment’s purpose and whether it was meant to be exclusive.
- Compliance with a safety ordinance is generally evidence of due care, not a complete defense, unless the law clearly makes compliance determinative.
- A statutory or regulatory requirement often sets a minimum level of safety; common-law reasonable care may call for more precaution depending on the risk and circumstances.
- Negligence claims should not be dismissed on the theory that compliance ends the duty question when there is room for a factfinder to conclude that additional measures were reasonably required.

## Conclusion

Montgomery v. Royal Motel holds that a motel’s compliance with a city ordinance requiring deadbolt locks does not automatically defeat a negligence claim alleging inadequate room-door security, because the ordinance is ordinarily treated as a minimum requirement and compliance is evidence—rather than conclusive proof—of reasonable care; therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed on their theory that reasonable care could have required additional precautions beyond a deadbolt, and the case was remanded.


Montgomery v. Royal Motel, 645 P.2d 968 (1982)