Courtney v. Remler

• Citation: 566 F. Supp. 1225
• Decision Date: 29 June 1983
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 81-1156-1.
• Parties: Deborah Marie COURTNEY, Plaintiff, v. Albert N. REMLER, Devaul L. Henderson, Jr., Dwain E. Ball, Erling D. Speer, Bernie Hirsch, Bernie Slotin, Robert M. Crumley, James E. Wright, E.K. Van Winkle, Jr., d/b/a Hotel Investments, A Limited Partnership, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

566 F. Supp. 1225

Deborah Marie COURTNEY, Plaintiff, v. Albert N. REMLER, Devaul L. Henderson, Jr., Dwain E. Ball, Erling D. Speer, Bernie Hirsch, Bernie Slotin, Robert M. Crumley, James E. Wright, E.K. Van Winkle, Jr., d/b/a Hotel Investments, A Limited Partnership, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 81-1156-1.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

June 29, 1983.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Joel D. Bailey, Beaufort, S.C., for plaintiff.

John V. Esposito, Hilton Head Island, S.C., for defendants.

ORDER

HAWKINS, District Judge.

This diversity action came on for trial before the court without a jury on February 22, 1983. The plaintiff was the victim of a brutal assault, robbery and rape while on her honeymoon on Hilton Head Island in Beaufort County, South Carolina. The incident occurred on October 1, 1979, while the plaintiff and her husband were spending the weekend at a motel owned by the defendants. The complaint alleged that the defendants negligently supervised and operated the motel in which the incident occurred, and such negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries, both physical and mental, sustained by the plaintiff.

The court, having heard all the evidence and having reviewed the briefs of counsel filed in this case, and having fully considered the applicable law, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the Town of Johnston, which is located in Edgefield County, South Carolina.

2. The individually named defendants are doing business as Hotel Investments, a limited partnership. The general partners are residents and citizens of the State of Georgia.

3. Hotel Investments, a Georgia Limited Partnership, was formed by Agreement and Certificate of Limited Partnership dated the 17th day of December, 1975. The purpose of this limited partnership was to own the land and improvements involved in this litigation.

4. Quality Management Co. was incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia on the 13th day of February 1976, and was duly qualified to transact business in the State of South Carolina. The company was formed for the purpose of operating the motel in question.

5. Hotel Investments, as Owner, and Quality Management Co., as Operator, entered into an Agreement dated the 1st day of September 1978, and pursuant thereto, Quality Management Co. took control and possession of the entire property, including the motel operation of the Islander Inn. The Agreement, pursuant to its terms, terminated on the 28th day of February, 1979, and the Agreement was not renewed.

6. On October 1, 1979, the plaintiff was brutally assaulted and raped while she and her husband were spending their honeymoon on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, and staying at the Islander Inn.

7. The plaintiff is a caucasian female born April 20, 1958. She grew up in a small-town, rural environment in Edgefield, South Carolina.

8. The plaintiff was married to Ronald H. Courtney on September 29, 1979, in Edgefield, South Carolina.

9. Ronald H. Courtney was a lifetime resident of Johnston, South Carolina. At the time of his marriage to the plaintiff, he was employed at a service station.

10. Prior to October 1, 1979, neither the plaintiff, nor her husband, nor any member of their respective families had been victims of a crime.

11. Criminal activity on Hilton Head Island had steadily increased each year since 1975.

12. There had been no assaults or any other crimes against any person occurring on the Islander Inn premises prior to the subject assault.

13. Although neither the plaintiff nor her husband had ever been to Hilton Head Island, they were aware of the reputation of the island as a luxury resort, but were unaware of any criminal activity occurring there.

14. The plaintiff's husband had stayed in motels on several occasions, but the plaintiff had only been a guest in a motel on one or two other occasions during her life.

15. The motel in question was originally designed and the plans and specifications were prepared by Mr. Terry Keane, a licensed architect who had previously designed other motels. Mr. Keane was originally hired by "Islander Associates," the original developers of the project.

16. Islander Associates obtained a franchise for the motel from Quality Inns International, Inc. ("Quality Inns"). The plans and specifications were approved by Quality Inns.

17. While under construction, the property was conveyed by Islander Associates to Hotel Investments, defendants herein, who completed construction of the motel pursuant to said plans. During completion of construction by defendants, Quality Inns inspected and approved the property pursuant to its franchise agreement. Hotel Investments subsequently determined to terminate the franchise agreement and the motel began operating as the Islander Inn, which was its designation at the time of the attack upon the plaintiff.

18. The plaintiff and her husband arrived at the Islander Inn during the early morning hours of September 30, 1979. Upon checking in, they noticed a uniformed security guard at the reception desk.

19. The Islander Inn complex consisted of a main building housing the lobby, reception area, restaurant and lounge. There were four (4) outlying buildings containing guest rooms. Each of the buildings containing guest rooms was rectangular in shape, two (2) stories in height, and had front and rear access doors. In addition, each ground level room had access to the outside via a sliding glass door.

20. Each guest room building had a long hallway down the center of the building separating the rooms on either side. The access doors to each building were not locked. Each guest room had a door leading into the hallway, and the hallway had a two and one-half (2.5) foot recessed area containing the entranceways to two rooms with an exact duplicate thereof across the hall.

21. Above each guest room door was a fluorescent light which provided the illumination of the hallways and the ability to see through the "observation port" located within the room side of the door. In front of each fluorescent light was a wooden valance to reflect the light rays directly up and down.

22. The motel room (Room 220) in which the assault occurred, as all rooms, had a fire-rated steel entrance door with a steel door frame. The steel door frame was constructed with a solid metal doorstop which prevented the opening of the door by the insertion of any object between the doorstop and the balance of the frame.

23. The doors were equipped with a door-latch with an automatic locking device. The doors closed and locked automatically.

24. The doorknob on the door was a motel security type which required the use of a key to open the door from the hall. The exterior or hallway-side portion of the doorknob contained "security lips," a mechanism utilized to deter the possible picking of the lock. The interior or room-side portion of the doorknob contained a push button whereby, when engaged, the entire exterior locking mechanism of the doorknob was secured against the possible opening of the door with either a room key or an employee's master key. For emergency situations, the management did maintain an emergency key which could override this double locking mechanism.

25. The steel doors contained a separate "dead bolt" security lock which was activated by a latch on the interior or room side of the steel door. On the exterior of the door a "room number" plaque was secured to the door and concealed an aperture in the door that allowed the "dead bolt" to be released from the hallway.

26. The doors contained an "observation port" whereby a guest in the room could look through the same and identify a person knocking outside the door or attempting to gain entrance. This observation port contained optics providing for magnification and wide vision when looking from the inside to the outside.

27. The door was not equipped with a chain lock or safety chain.

28. The steel door did not have any warning or cautionary instructions reminding guests to keep their doors locked and not to open the door for a stranger.

29. The sliding glass door, which provided a second means of access to the outside, contained a locking mechanism which had to be locked manually from the interior. It was the policy of the management to have a sticker or decal affixed to the sliding glass door above the handle and locking mechanism warning all guests to keep doors locked for their protection. It was the further policy of management to have the maids, when cleaning a room, leave all drapes covering the sliding glass door halfway open to allow sunlight to enter the room, and, consequently, this warning decal could easily have been seen. The maids were also instructed by management to replace any decals that either wore off or were torn off.

30. Room 220, on the date and time complained of, also had a telephone located therein, which was in proper working order, with instructions on the phone indicating numbers to dial direct to the front desk, the manager, and other motel offices.

31. Quality Management Co. had a planned, on-going security system which included both "in-house" personnel, as well as the utilization of a private security patrolman.

32. On a twenty-four (24) hour basis, security was provided by "in-house" personnel, including specific staff members and a security conscious awareness program extending to all employees. Housekeeping employees were charged with the responsibility of cleaning guest rooms and checking to see that the rooms were in order.

33. Certain employees were permitted to reside in efficiency units located on the Islander Inn premises.

34. Exterior lighting on the premises originally consisted primarily of low level pathway lights. The main parking area was illuminated by high intensity mercury vapor lights. There were no exterior lights on the buildings...