Naghiu v. Inter-Continental Hotels Group, Inc.
1996 WL 118277, 165 F.R.D. 413, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2263 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A proprietor's duty to protect business invitees from the criminal acts of third parties arises only when such acts are foreseeable, which typically requires the plaintiff to show evidence of prior similar incidents on the premises. Additionally, an employee who has mere custody of an employer's property is not a bailee and therefore lacks standing as the real party in interest to sue for its loss.
Facts:
- Leslie Naghiu, an employee of the Christian Broadcast Network (CBN), served as the director of executive protection for its leader, Pat Robertson.
- In March 1993, Naghiu traveled to Zaire on behalf of CBN, carrying an attaché case with approximately $100,000 of CBN's cash for purchasing diamonds and humanitarian aid.
- Naghiu and his group stayed at the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kinshasa, where he twice requested a safe deposit box for the cash but was told none were available.
- Naghiu complained to the hotel's General Manager about prostitutes in the hotel corridors but did not mention his inability to secure a safe deposit box.
- During the trip, an additional $46,000 in proceeds from a diamond transaction was added to the attaché case.
- On the evening of March 23, 1993, Naghiu hid the attaché case containing the $146,000 behind a couch in his hotel room and left the hotel for dinner.
- Upon returning to his room, Naghiu was attacked and knocked unconscious by two intruders.
- The intruders stole the attaché case and its contents, and Naghiu suffered personal bodily injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Leslie and Laverne Naghiu filed a diversity suit against Inter-Continental Hotels Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
- Inter-Continental filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the property loss claim, arguing Naghiu was not the real party in interest.
- Inter-Continental also filed a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment on the personal injury tort claim.
- Because both parties submitted evidence beyond the pleadings on the motion to dismiss, the court converted that motion into one for summary judgment as well.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a hotel operator liable for personal injuries sustained by a guest from a criminal attack by a third party when the guest fails to present evidence of prior similar criminal incidents that would make the attack foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Murray M. Schwartz
No. A hotel operator is not liable for personal injuries sustained by a guest from a criminal attack by a third party without evidence that the attack was foreseeable. Under Delaware tort law, a proprietor is not an absolute insurer of an invitee's safety. A duty to protect invitees from the criminal acts of third parties arises only when specific criminal conduct is foreseeable, a standard typically met by showing prior incidents of similar criminal conduct on the premises. Here, Naghiu failed to produce any evidence of prior assaults or similar crimes occurring at the hotel that would have put Inter-Continental on notice. By relying solely on conclusory allegations and suspicions, he failed to establish a breach of duty, a necessary element of his negligence claim. Separately, the court held Naghiu was not the real party in interest to sue for the stolen $146,000 because, as an employee with mere custody of his employer's funds, he did not qualify as a bailee under Virginia law and had no personal legal interest in the money.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the common law principle that a landowner's duty to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts is not absolute and is contingent upon foreseeability. It underscores the critical evidentiary burden on a plaintiff to demonstrate a pattern of prior similar incidents to establish that a specific crime was foreseeable to the property owner. The case serves as a clear example of how a negligence claim can fail at the summary judgment stage if the plaintiff cannot produce specific facts to support the element of breach of duty. Furthermore, it provides a distinct application of the real party in interest rule, distinguishing between an employee's custodial possession and a bailee's legal possession of property.
