477 F.3d 511, 517-518 (7th Cir. 2007)
The plaintiff, a young woman employed in a casket factory and a member of the steelworkers union, attended a “Women in Steel” union conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. On the first night of her stay, she met and had drinks with a Guatemalan lawyer visiting as part of a delegation that included that country’s president.1
After the bar closed at 1 a.m., the patrons moved to the lobby. At 2 a.m., while the plaintiff was waiting in front of a bank of elevators, the lawyer accosted her and began kissing and fondling her. She resisted without crying out as no one was in sight, fought free, entered an elevator, but the lawyer followed and raped her. She was discovered by a security guard at the next floor, and the rapist was arrested and convicted.2
The hotel normally had three security guards on duty at that time of night—one in the lobby, one monitoring cameras, and one patrolling. On the night of the rape, one guard was sick, leaving no guard in the lobby or monitoring cameras, and there were no security cameras trained on the elevators or the area in front of them.3
The plaintiff sued the hotel owner in a diversity action for negligence in failing to prevent the rape. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, and the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case under District of Columbia law.4
Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendant hotel owner in this diversity tort suit?5
Under District of Columbia law, a hotel owes its guests a duty to take precautions that are reasonable in relation to the likelihood that without them guests will be victims of criminal acts.6 To survive summary judgment the plaintiff must present evidence, often including expert testimony comparing industry standards and assessing specific risks, showing that the hotel breached this duty.7
Yes. The plaintiff failed to present evidence concerning the safety precautions customarily taken by luxury hotels in Washington or to substantiate the expert's opinion with comparisons to comparable hotels. The expert's testimony on 637 criminal acts within a 2000-foot radius did not justify the radius choice or compare to other areas.8 The risk of guest-on-guest crime was minuscule given only one prior incident of guest misconduct.9
Therefore, there was no genuine issue of material fact on the hotel's breach of duty.10
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendant hotel owner.11
Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the adequacy of the hotel's security precautions against guest-on-guest crime?12
A plaintiff alleging negligence for failure to prevent guest-on-guest crime must introduce expert testimony or other evidence comparing the hotel's precautions to industry standards for comparable hotels.13 The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the risk of such crime warranted additional measures. Absent such evidence, summary judgment is proper even if the general risk of crime in the area is shown.14
No. The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the adequacy of the hotel's security precautions against guest-on-guest crime.1516 The expert witness failed to compare the Shoreham's security measures with those of comparable hotels in comparable neighborhoods or to assess the specific danger of attacks by other guests inside the hotel. Although 637 criminal acts occurred within a 2000-foot radius in the preceding three years, the expert provided no justification for that radius, no comparison to other areas, and no breakdown showing how many incidents could have imperiled hotel guests.17 The only prior guest misconduct was a single exposure incident that resulted in quick expulsion, confirming that the risk of guest-on-guest crime was minuscule and that no additional precautions were required to avoid liability.18
The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the adequacy of the hotel's security precautions against guest-on-guest crime.