## Facts

- Susan Wassell, age 21, stayed at the Ron-Ric Motel near the Great Lakes Naval Training Station in Illinois, operated by Wilbur and Florena Adams.
- The motel was a small, inexpensive 14-room property in an area near a high-crime neighborhood; the owners sometimes warned women not to walk alone at night but did not warn Wassell.
- After her fiancé’s graduation weekend, Wassell stayed alone in a single room and returned for the night, locking the door and fastening the chain.
- Around 1:00 a.m., Wassell was awakened by a knock, looked through the peephole and saw no one, did not use an adjacent glass pane to check, unlocked the locks, and opened the door fully.
- A man she did not know was at the door; after brief conversation, she let him enter, and he raped her; she screamed but received no assistance.
- The room had no telephone, and the motel had no alarm system or night security guard.
- Evidence indicated three prior attacks on motel guests over the preceding seven years.
- Wassell was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and sued, alleging negligent failure to warn and to provide reasonable security measures.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a new trial where the jury allocated 97% comparative fault to Wassell and 3% to the motel owners.
2. Whether the 97/3 apportionment was against the clear weight of the evidence in light of foreseeable criminal risk and the motel’s alleged security omissions.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- Because liability was not challenged on appeal, the only question was whether the trial judge abused discretion in refusing to set aside the comparative-fault allocation.
- The court held that apportionment of fault is a fact question for the jury and may be disturbed only if the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence.
- The court concluded the 97/3 allocation fell within the range a rational jury could reach, given Wassell’s decision to open the door at 1:00 a.m. to an unknown person and admit him.
- The court reasoned that additional motel precautions (such as a guard) could be viewed as costly for a low-priced, small motel, and a warning likely would not have prevented the assault under Wassell’s account.

## Legal Principles

- Comparative-fault apportionment is primarily for the jury; a new trial is warranted only when the allocation is against the clear weight of the evidence.
- Appellate review of a denial of a new-trial motion is for abuse of discretion, not for reweighing fault as the appellate court would.
- A landowner/innkeeper’s duty to take reasonable steps against foreseeable third-party crime is assessed in relation to the expected risk reduction and the burden of precautions.
- A plaintiff’s low-cost ability to avoid a clear risk may support assigning the plaintiff a dominant share of comparative negligence, even where the defendant’s negligence contributes causally.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of a new trial because a rational jury could assign overwhelming comparative fault to a guest who opened her motel-room door late at night to a stranger and let him inside, while assigning only a small share to motel owners whose additional protective measures could be viewed as burdensome and whose failure to warn was not shown to be outcome-determinative.


Wassell v. Adams, 865 F.2d 849 (7th Cir. 1989)