Mitchell v. Pearson Enterprises

Utah Supreme Court · Torts

Tortsnegligenceinnkeeper liabilityproximate causecriminal acts of third partiessummary judgmentinnkeeper dutyordinary care

Facts

Donald Mitchell, a guest at the Salt Lake Hilton, was found shot to death in his hotel room after breakfast with a business associate. The hotel had multiple unsecured entrances, no electronic surveillance or alarms on guest floors or entrances, minimal supervision over room keys and passkeys, and only one security guard patrolling the entire hotel complex. Deposition evidence also showed prior crimes at the hotel, the presence of unauthorized persons on guest floors, and lax hiring and security practices. But no one knew how the murderer encountered Mitchell, entered the room, or whether the killer used a key, was invited in, or had a prior relationship with Mitchell.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs' evidence of allegedly inadequate hotel security created a triable issue of negligence and causation for Mitchell's murder, despite the absence of direct evidence showing how the murderer gained access to Mitchell or his room. A related issue was whether plaintiffs' express or implied warranty theory could survive summary judgment without proof that any breach proximately caused the death.

Rule

An innkeeper is not an insurer of guest safety, but owes ordinary care to keep assigned premises reasonably safe for guest use and occupancy. In the hotel-guest context, required security measures must be commensurate with the facts and circumstances apparent to an ordinarily prudent person, including factors such as crime conditions, suspicious persons, and design-related security problems. However, even if negligence evidence is sufficient, summary judgment is proper when there is no non-speculative evidence that the alleged security deficiencies were the proximate cause of the injury. Proximate cause is the cause that, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz checked into the Harbor Crest Hotel in San Diego. The hotel had several unlocked side entrances, no cameras on guest floors, and loose control over master keys. Lena was later found unconscious in her room after an assault, but she survived and testified that the attacker opened the door with a brass key marked with the hotel's floor number and entered before she could react.

If Lena sues the hotel for negligent security and the hotel moves for summary judgment, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. An innkeeper owes ordinary care to provide security commensurate with the circumstances, but liability also requires proof that the alleged deficiency was a proximate cause of the injury. Here, unlike a case where no one knows how the assailant entered, Lena's testimony supplies direct, non-speculative evidence connecting deficient key control to the assault. Because reasonable jurors could find causation, summary judgment should be denied. (Derived from Mitchell v. Pearson Enterprises (n.d.).)