Reichenbach v. Days Inn of America, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-300,80-300 |
| Citation | 401 So.2d 1366 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Alfred E. REICHENBACH and Thia Reichenbach, Appellant, v. DAYS INN OF AMERICA, INC., and Sentry Indemnity Company, Appellees. & 80-603. |
Thomas M. Burke of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Orlando, for appellants.
Mary Patricia C. Fawsett of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment holding a motel not liable for an assault on one of its guests. We affirm.
Appellant, Alfred E. Reichenbach, was a guest at appellee's motel. At approximately 10:00 p. m., he parked his car in the parking lot and proceeded to step out of the car. At this point, an assailant came up and stated: "Don't do anything foolish." Reichenbach responded, "what" and was immediately shot twice. The assailant fled. The incident occurred so quickly that appellant could not identify or describe the assailant. A bus driver, the only eyewitness, was present with a charter group as a guest of the motel. Just before the shooting he had noticed a security guard making his rounds in the area where the event took place. Another employee was also patrolling. A few minutes after seeing the guard he saw a young, white male on the walkway. They greeted each other and he noticed "nothing unusual whatever" about the man and nothing to indicate he was armed. The bus driver walked upstairs onto the breezeway overlooking the parking lot. He then noticed appellant drive into the parking lot. As appellant got out of the car, the young man ran up to him, shot twice, ran to another car in the parking lot and left.
An innkeeper may be liable if he fails to take reasonable precautions to deter the type of criminal activity which resulted in a guest's injury. See Orlando Executive Park v. P.D.R., 402 So.2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In the case before us, there was no evidence that the innkeeper could have deterred or prevented appellant's injury by reasonable precautions which were not taken. There was no evidence that this incident was foreseeable or that the motel had any practical or reasonable method to protect its guest from or prevent this unprovoked hit and run attack.
AFFIRMED.
I specially concur with the majority opinion but write to point up what I perceive as an aberration of existing tort principles.
A registered guest of a motel is entitled to receive from the innkeeper the degree of care owed a business invitee. 1 Generally, an innkeeper stands in such a special relation to guests that the innkeeper has a duty to take reasonable action to protect them against unreasonable risks of physical harm and this duty can include the obligation to exercise control over the conduct of third persons 2 and to prevent a third person from criminally assaulting a guest. 3
The duty of an innkeeper to protect guests from the danger of a criminal assault by a third person presents an interesting problem relating to the concept of foreseeability. Appellants maintain that the location or particular character of a specific motel business, or past experience, should cause the innkeeper to reasonably anticipate that criminal assaults are likely to endanger the safety of guests. 4 It is contended that ability to generally foresee such danger creates a duty on the innkeeper to take affirmative action to deter persons intent on such wrongful conduct and to warn guests of prior criminal activity. 5 From these broad premises it is argued that a specific criminal assault on a guest by a third person was the proximate cause of, or resulted from, the failure of the innkeeper to meet this duty.
That motel guests will be criminally assaulted in the future is not only foreseeable it is a certainty. This will occur not because innkeepers do not protect guests but because crime will continue and citizens generally will continue to be criminally assaulted and motel guests will be no exception. However, the general foreseeability of the risk of a criminal assault upon a guest by a third person only permits such precautionary measures as will deter crime generally. Employing security guards, and installing closed circuit video cameras and lights may deter crime generally, but can not reasonably be expected to prevent all crime or any one specific criminal act. 6 This is evident from the fact that, although society takes action to deter crime generally, law enforcement 7 rarely prevents a crime and then only when, by chance or by specific information relating to a threatened or planned crime, there is opportunity to take specific action to prevent a particular crime. Innkeepers should not be legally required to do that which organized society cannot do. 8 No reasonable standard of care should require one to be ever on guard, ever present, ready and able, to prevent an unforeseeable personal criminal attack upon another. 9 Although crime is foreseeable, generally an innkeeper, as well as others, may, under ordinary circumstances, reasonably assume that third persons will not violate the criminal law and will not intentionally cause harm to guests. Since the innkeeper is not an insurer of the guest's safety and is not liable, strictly or otherwise, for the acts of third persons, 10 he is under no duty to exercise any care to warn or to take preventive action 11 until he knows, or has reason to believe, that a third person is acting, or is about to act, in a manner as will, or is likely to, cause harm to a guest. 12 By their very nature assaults usually occur suddenly and without warning and without giving an opportunity to defend. Therefore, to prevent an assault by one person upon another requires an opportunity arising from some specific knowledge, notice or warning. 13
Additionally, even where an innkeeper has reason to believe a third person is likely to assault a guest, an innkeeper's duty should be coextensive with his ability to meet that duty. This means the innkeeper should not be held responsible for an assault by a third party on a guest unless the innkeeper, acting reasonably, could have feasibly prevented it. There are severe limitations on the capability of anyone to prevent an assault on another person by a third party. First, it is in the nature of things that mobile or free moving objects are difficult to protect and secure. It is for this reason that more vehicles are stolen than other less mobile chattels and that valuable objects are kept in vaults, safety boxes and other various stationary places. Motel guests, like other free citizens, go and come at their pleasure. Also, persons intent on making a criminal assault, especially those not acting on impulse or merely upon an opportunity or perceived necessity, have the advantage of surprise and select the time, place, method and circumstances, rarely giving the victim, the police or an innkeeper an opportunity to prevent the particular assault. 14 Additionally, in earlier times innkeepers were required to accept the public generally but could with some impunity reject or eject persons considered disorderly, intoxicated, dangerous or undesirable. However, now in Florida, motels are not entirely free to exclude guests 15 or persons who visit guests 16 or other members of the public who come to use facilities and services which are customarily available to the public. 17 Thus, the character of a motel is essentially that of a public place and innkeepers lack the usual possessor's peculiar ability to exercise control over third persons using his property. This "open door policy" extends to all public areas and, while it impairs security, it is a necessary consequence of a free society and of motels and other public and semi-public places. Considering these circumstances, even when there is reason to be apprehensive of potential risk of harm to guests from an assault by a particular individual, the innkeeper must act reasonably and lawfully toward everyone, including third persons who may appear to be suspicious. Unless the circumstances not only give reasonable opportunity but also demand immediate action, when criminal acts are threatened the reasonable prudent present-day innkeeper can normally only call the police. 18
Lastly, even if the innkeeper realizes, or should realize, that an assault is probable and circumstances do not permit police to be summoned, yet give the innkeeper a reasonable opportunity to act, the innkeeper should have a reasonable ability and method to prevent the assault before he is held liable for not doing so. An innkeeper who personally resorts to physical force risks harm to himself and legal consequences in the form of compensation and punitive damages. Even where physical force is justified, the innkeeper and his employees may not be able to physically restrain a strong, violent or dangerous third person. What if, as here, the assailant is armed? An unarmed innkeeper is no match for an armed assailant. If the innkeeper had been standing at alert beside Dr. Reichenbach when this assault with a firearm occurred, as a practical matter exactly what could the innkeeper have done to have protected his guest? There are no limitations on the assailant, but the innkeeper's right to arm himself is severely limited, 19 and there is great penalty if the legal restrictions are disregarded. 20
This is not a case where an innkeeper 21 or an employee or other person within the control of the innkeeper 22 commits an assault on a guest. Nor does this case involve an innkeeper who neglected to take action after learning of the potential need of a particular guest for protection from some threatened harm. 23 Nor does this case involve a cause of action based on express or implied contract. 24 Neither does this case involve locking devices or other security measures relating to a private room...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp.
...had no actual or constructive knowledge of any danger to guests from third party assailant); Reichenbach v. Days Inn of America, Inc., 401 So.2d 1366 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (Cowart, J., concurring) (innkeeper not responsible absent notice that a particular person might assault some guest or......
-
Virginia D. v. Madesco Inv. Corp., 64183
...Compensating Rape Victims," 8 Golden Gate L.Rev. 479 (1979).14 Among the "hotel" cases so holding are Reichenbach v. Days Inn of America, Inc., 401 So.2d 1366 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Montgomery v. Royal Motel, 645 P.2d 968 (Nev.1982) (citing cases and announcing a "precipitous assault" doct......
-
Crinkley v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
... ... See Murrow (motel owner); Urbano v. Days Inn of America, Inc., 50 N.C.App. 795, 295 S.E.2d 240 (1982) (same). See also Brown (duty owed ... P.D.R., 402 So.2d 442, 451-52 (Fla. 5th Distr.Ct.App.1981) (Cowart, J., dissenting); Reichenbach v. Days Inn of America, Inc., 401 So.2d 1366, 1367-71 (Fla. 5th Distr.Ct.App.1981) (Cowart, J., ... ...
-
Sunshine Birds and Supplies, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
...Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So.2d 435, 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (employer's duty to refrain from negligent hiring); Reichenbach v. Days Inn, Inc., 401 So.2d 1366, 1367 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (finding innkeeper may be liable if he fails to take reasonable precautions to deter the type of criminal activi......
-
Premises liability.
...a premises case on the pleadings--as should be the norm. Judge Cowart's concurring opinion in Reichenbach v. Days Inn of America, Inc., 401 So. 2d 1366, 1367-71 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), also reminds us of the reasoning in Palsgraff, but it, too, is now apparently flotsam on the sea on jurisprud......