McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc.
826 F.2d 1554 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is not negligent if the burden of taking a precaution is greater than the probability of the resulting harm multiplied by the magnitude of that harm (B > P * L). A plaintiff must present evidence on the cost and effectiveness of untaken precautions to demonstrate a defendant's breach of duty.
Facts:
- Dula McCarty, a guest at Pheasant Run Lodge, was assigned a second-floor room.
- The room contained a sliding glass door with a lock and a safety chain, which opened onto a walkway with public access from the ground.
- McCarty left her room for dinner and a meeting, leaving the drapes drawn over the sliding glass door.
- Upon returning to her room, she was attacked by a man who had concealed himself inside.
- A police investigation after the attack revealed that the sliding glass door had been closed but not locked.
- The investigation also showed that the door had been pried open from the outside and the security chain had been broken.
Procedural Posture:
- Dula McCarty sued Pheasant Run, Inc. for negligence in a federal district court (the court of first instance), with jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Pheasant Run, Inc.
- McCarty filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the district court denied, partly because she had failed to first move for a directed verdict on the defendant's negligence.
- McCarty (appellant) appealed the jury's verdict and the denial of her post-trial motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Pheasant Run, Inc. is the appellee.
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 a hotel breach its duty of reasonable care to a guest by failing to implement additional security measures when the guest is attacked by an intruder who enters through a sliding glass door that the guest left unlocked?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. A hotel does not breach its duty of reasonable care when a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was not negligent. The court analyzed negligence through the economic lens of the Hand Formula, which states that an actor is in breach of their duty if the burden of taking adequate precautions (B) is less than the probability of injury (P) multiplied by the gravity of the resulting injury (L). Here, McCarty failed to present evidence demonstrating that the cost of proposed precautions—such as better locks, more guards, or warnings—was less than the expected harm. The jury could reasonably conclude the hotel was not negligent, especially since any precaution involving a better lock would have been ineffective because McCarty failed to use the existing lock. It is a bedrock principle that the standard of due care assumes the potential victim is also exercising reasonable care; a careless person cannot raise the standard of care for others. Therefore, the jury's verdict for the defendant was not unreasonable.
Analysis:
This case is a prominent example of Judge Posner's application of the law and economics movement to tort law, specifically using the Hand Formula as a primary analytical tool for determining negligence. The decision shifts the abstract "reasonable person" standard toward a more concrete, quantitative cost-benefit analysis. It establishes that plaintiffs cannot merely suggest alternative safety measures; they bear an evidentiary burden to show that untaken precautions were cost-justified. This approach heavily influences modern negligence analysis by requiring parties to present evidence on the costs, feasibility, and expected benefits of safety precautions, impacting how future cases involving premises liability and duty of care are litigated.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. (1987)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"