Montgomery v. Royal Motel
1982 Nev. LEXIS 440, 645 P.2d 968, 98 Nev. 240 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner's compliance with a safety ordinance satisfies the common law duty of care to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts, unless the plaintiff demonstrates the existence of special circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to take additional precautions.
Facts:
- On January 10, 1978, Helen and Kenneth Montgomery rented a room at the Royal Motel in Las Vegas.
- The door to their room was not self-locking but was equipped with an operable deadbolt latch, which met the requirements of a Las Vegas municipal ordinance.
- The Montgomerys customarily locked the deadbolt immediately upon entering their room.
- On February 1, 1978, the Montgomerys were assaulted and robbed by an unknown assailant just after they had returned to their room, but before they had locked the door.
- There was no evidence of a history of prior similar criminal incidents at the motel.
- The motel proprietor had no specific reason to suspect an attacker was on the premises at the time of the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Helen and Kenneth Montgomery filed a negligence lawsuit against Royal Motel in a Nevada trial court.
- Royal Motel filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing its compliance with a city ordinance satisfied its duty of care.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Royal Motel.
- The Montgomerys, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
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 motel owner's compliance with a local ordinance requiring deadbolt locks satisfy their duty of care to protect guests from criminal acts, as a matter of law, when there are no special circumstances indicating a heightened risk of harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Manoukian, J.
Yes. A motel owner's compliance with a local safety ordinance is sufficient to meet their duty of care as a matter of law in a normal situation devoid of special circumstances. The court reasoned that while a legislative enactment typically establishes a minimum standard of conduct, compliance can be deemed legally sufficient when the facts represent a 'normal' situation contemplated by the law. The Montgomerys failed to present any facts showing special circumstances—such as a history of prior similar crimes or specific knowledge of a threat—that would require the motel to take precautions beyond the ordinance, like installing self-locking doors. Furthermore, the court held that a precipitous criminal act is an unforeseeable intervening force for which a property owner is generally not liable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the relationship between statutory standards and the common law duty of care in negligence cases involving third-party criminal acts. It establishes that while a statute is typically a floor, not a ceiling, for the standard of care, a plaintiff must produce evidence of 'special circumstances' to argue for a higher standard. By allowing summary judgment for a defendant who complied with the statute, the court reinforces that foreseeability is the cornerstone of duty and that without evidence of heightened risk (like prior similar incidents), a random criminal act will be deemed unforeseeable as a matter of law.
