Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel
95 N.W.2d 657 (1959) 254 Minn. 373 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An innkeeper has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the public on adjacent property from foreseeable harm caused by the disorderly conduct of its guests, which may require taking affirmative steps to control guests or seek assistance when the innkeeper has notice of such conduct.
Facts:
- The Nicollet Hotel hosted a large National Junior Chamber of Commerce Convention, turning over its rooms and facilities for meetings and social purposes.
- During the convention, guests engaged in widespread disorderly conduct, which included damaging hotel property on numerous floors and firing guns in the lobby.
- Hotel management was aware that guests had been throwing objects, such as water bags, ice cubes, a window screen, and a bottle, from hotel windows onto the adjacent public sidewalks on previous days.
- The hotel's general manager described the convention in a memo as a 'harrowing experience' and acknowledged that the situation was out of control, particularly in the evenings.
- The hotel permitted hospitality centers to serve free intoxicants, and convention activities included stabling a mule in the lobby and keeping an alligator on the fourth floor.
- Marcella A. Connolly was walking on the public sidewalk next to the hotel when she was struck in the eye by a 'mud-like substance' that fell from the hotel building.
- The injury caused Connolly to lose the sight in her left eye.
Procedural Posture:
- Marcella A. Connolly sued The Nicollet Hotel in a Minnesota state trial court for negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Connolly for $30,000.
- The trial court granted The Nicollet Hotel's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), setting aside the jury's verdict and ruling in favor of the hotel.
- Connolly, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order granting JNOV to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an innkeeper have a duty to protect a pedestrian on a public sidewalk from injury caused by an object thrown from a guest's room, when the innkeeper has prior knowledge of the guests' ongoing and widespread disorderly conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, Justice.
Yes. An innkeeper's duty to protect the public extends to foreseeable risks of danger attendant upon the operation of its property, including risks created by the disorderly conduct of its guests. The common-law test of duty is the foreseeability of injury; the risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed. Here, the hotel had ample notice of its guests' dangerous and destructive behavior, including prior instances of objects being thrown from windows. This course of conduct made the risk of injury to a pedestrian, like the plaintiff, foreseeable. Once aware of this foreseeable risk and realizing its own preliminary precautions were insufficient, the hotel had an affirmative duty to take further reasonable steps, such as hiring additional guards, requesting more police protection, or appealing to convention leaders to control their members. By failing to take such action and instead 'turning the other cheek,' the hotel acquiesced in the misuse of its property and breached its duty of care to the public.
Dissenting - Thomas Gallagher, Justice
No. An innkeeper is liable for a guest's act only when they knew or should have known that the specific guest was likely to cause injury. The duty is to guard against reasonably probable dangers, not all conceivable ones. The prior incidents of thrown objects were isolated, not a 'regular deluge' that would require extreme measures. To hold the defendant liable would effectively require stationing a guard in every guest room, an unreasonable and impossible standard that would make the hotel an absolute insurer of its guests' conduct. Much of the evidence regarding general rowdiness, such as damaged furniture or animals in the lobby, is irrelevant to the specific risk of an object being thrown from a window. The hotel did take reasonable precautions by hiring extra patrols, and it should not be held liable for a random act it could not specifically foresee or prevent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and expands the scope of an innkeeper's duty of care, extending it beyond the physical premises to protect the public on adjacent property from the foreseeable acts of guests. The ruling establishes that notice of a general pattern of dangerous conduct by a group can be sufficient to create a duty to act, even without being able to identify the specific individuals responsible. This moves away from requiring notice of a specific threat and instead focuses on a broader 'range of apprehension,' impacting how businesses that host large, potentially unruly crowds must manage foreseeable risks to the public.
Unlock the full brief for Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel