Asia Jeter, left the room and went to the casino floor. The parties dispute 

whether Jeter possessed a room key when she left the room. 

Upon arriving downstairs, Jeter met with Roderick Sawyer. 

Jeter and Sawyer then returned to Smith's guest room, again passing The 

Orleans' security staff at the key watch stand.' Sawyer entered Smith's 

room and shot him. The Orleans maintains that Sawyer was Jeter's pimp 

and that he orchestrated this "trick-roll," in which Jeter would gain access 

to Smith's room and then accompany Sawyer back to Smith's room so that 

Sawyer could rob him 

As a result of his injuries sustained in the alleged "trick-roll," 

Smith filed a complaint against The Orleans, alleging (1) negligence; (2) 

negligent hiring, training and/or supervision; (3) respondeat superior; and 

(4) res ipsa loquitur. The Orleans filed a motion for summary judgment, 

arguing that Sawyer's and Jeter's acts were not foreseeable because (1) 

The Orleans took the basic minimum precautions to ensure the safety of 

its patrons under NRS 651.015(3)(a); and (2) there were no prior similar 

acts that would impart knowledge—and thus a duty—on The Orleans 

under NRS 651.015(3)(b). 

In his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Smith 

argued that while The Orleans implemented a key watch stand, it failed to 

follow its own procedures because its security guard failed to prevent a 

non-guest from entering the guest room tower without showing a key card. 

1The parties dispute whether Jeter or Sawyer showed a key while 

passing security at the key watch stand. However, this fact goes to the 

issues of breach and causation in a negligence action, which are both 

beyond the scope of our inquiry here. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
Smith's opposition cited deposition testimony from The Orleans' security 

officers who stated that the key watch stand was created to "protect from 

crimes," to "keep the riffraff out," and generally for the safety of the guests 

in their hotel rooms. Smith also cited a security expert regarding general 

industry practices. Smith argued that both the security videotape and his 

expert would demonstrate that there was a breakdown in security at the 

key watch stand based on general hotel security industry standards, and 

The Orleans' own policies, procedures, and practices. 

At oral argument, the district court deferred ruling on the 

motion for summary judgment in order to review the videotape of Sawyer 

and Jeter walking past the key watch stand. One week later, the court 

granted The Orleans' motion for summary judgment. 2The district court 

concluded that (1) "no admissible evidence has been presented that 

establishes that The Orleans had knowledge of prior similar intentional 

criminal acts," (2) "The Orleans took basic minimum precautions to 

prevent criminal conduct," and (3) the actions of Sawyer and the woman 

did not "establish a breach of duty by the hotel." Smith now appeals. 3 

Standard of review 

"In a negligence action, summary judgment should be 

considered with caution." Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., 109 Nev. 1096, 

1100, 864 P.2d 796, 798 (1993), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Estate of Smith v. Mahoney's Silver Nugget, Inc., 127 Nev. , 

2The district court order does not include any findings of fact 

regarding what the videotape actually showed. 

SUPREME COURT 

Of 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 91411040 
, 265 P.3d 688, 691 (2011). Summary judgment is appropriate when, 

after viewing the evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no 

genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 

121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). An issue of material fact is genuine when the 

evidence is such that a rational jury could return a verdict in favor of the 

nonmoving party. Id. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1031. "This court reviews a 

district court's grant of summary judgment and its statutory construction 

determinations de novo." Mahoney's Silver Nugget, 127 Nev. at , 265 

P.3d at 690. 

The district court erred in ruling that an alleged "trick-roll" was 

unforeseeable as a matter of law 

In an innkeeper negligence action, a plaintiff must establish 

the four basic elements of negligence: "(1) duty, (2) breach, (3) proximate 

causation, and (4) damages." Mahoney's Silver Nugget, 127 Nev. at , 

265 P.3d at 690. The duty element is at issue here. Under NRS 

651.015(2), an innkeeper has a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable 

wrongful acts. "The determination of foreseeability as it relates to an 

innkeeper's duty of care to a patron must be made by the district court as 

a matter of law." Mahoney's Silver Nugget, 127 Nev. at , 265 P.3d at 

691. This determination is governed by NRS 651.015(3). Id. 

NRS 651.015(3) provides that a wrongful act is not foreseeable 

unless: (a) the owner failed to exercise due care; or (b) similar prior 

incidents occurred on the premises and the owner had notice or knowledge 

of those incidents. In analyzing the "due care" language in the first option, 

this court has concluded that "due care" allows a judge to "look beyond the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 
existence of similar wrongful acts in determining the existence of a duty," 

and evaluate "any other circumstances related to the exercise of due care." 

Mahoney's Silver Nugget, 127 Nev. at , 265 P.3d at 692 (internal 

quotations omitted). Thus, in order to survive summary judgment, Smith 

was required to establish that the wrongful act was foreseeable under 

either NRS 651.015(3)(a) or NRS 651.015(3)(b). 

Here, the record supports the conclusion that The Orleans was 

on notice that "trick-rolls" or other violent crimes could occur if non-guests 

were allowed access to casino hotel room towers. While Mahoney's Silver 

Nugget provides the appropriate legal structure for this court's analysis, 

this case is factually distinguishable from Mahoney's Silver Nugget. In 

Mahoney's Silver Nugget, a group of patrons arrived at a public lounge, 

were spotted by security, and were asked to leave within five minutes of 

their arrival. 127 Nev. at , 265 P.3d at 690. As the group was being 

escorted out of the casino by security, one member of the group began 

arguing with a patron who was sitting at a bar adjacent to the lounge. Id. 

Over a period of approximately ten seconds, the two engaged in a physical 

altercation, during which one man was fatally shot. Id. Based on those 

facts, this court concluded that Mahoney's Silver Nugget did not owe a 

duty to the victim as a matter of law. Id. at 693. However, unlike in 

Mahoney's Silver Nugget, where the event occurred in a public area on the 

casino-lounge floor, this event occurred in the guest room tower beyond 

the security key checkpoint. The location of this alleged "trick-roll"—the 

guest room tower—is an area of heightened security in which guests are 

more vulnerable to certain crimes, such as robberies or sexual assaults, 

making such an occurrence foreseeable. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(0) 1947A (7letz 
Here, the record demonstrates that the district court failed to 

view the competing evidence in the light most favorable to Smith. First, 

the very fact that The Orleans itself refers to this crime as a "trick-roll" 

indicates that it was aware that such crimes may occur if non-guests are 

allowed access to guest room towers. Additionally, The Orleans' security 

staff acknowledged that it has a duty to keep non-guests from reaching the 

hotel tower to "protect from crimes" and for the general safety of its 

guests. As a result, we conclude that the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment on the issue of duty. 

We note that under NRS 651.015, the district court was only 

tasked with determining whether such a crime was foreseeable, thereby 

imposing a duty on The Orleans. In light of this limitation, the district 

court's conclusions of law finding (1) that Jeter showed a room key card to 

security, solely based on the deposition testimony of Donald Moore; and (2) 

that "[am n alleged prostitute or the perpetrator . . . gaining entrance with 

the use of a room card key does not establish a breach of duty by the hotel" 

were error because the issues of breach, causation, and damages are 

factual issues that should be left to the trier of fact. Additionally, there is 

conflicting evidence in the record regarding whether Jeter possessed a 

room key card when she initially left Smith's room and whether Jeter and 

Sawyer showed a key card when returning to Smith's room. These are 

disputed material issues that must be resolved by a trier of fact. As a 

result, we conclude that the district court erred in making findings of fact 

and conclusions of law that (1) are reserved for the trier of fact, and (2) 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 6 

10) 1947A 
that did not view the conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to 

Smith. Accordingly, we4 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings 

consistent with this order. 

J. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge 

Hon. J. Charles Thompson, District Judge 

Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge 

Hawkins Melendrez, P.C. 

Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

4In light of this disposition, we vacate the district court order 

granting in part The Orleans' motion for attorney fees and costs. See 

Miller v. Jones, 114 Nev. 1291, 1300, 970 P.2d 571, 577-78 (1998) 

(vacating a district court award of attorney fees upon reversing the district 

court order granting summary judgment). Additionally, we need not 

address the parties' remaining arguments. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 7 

(0) 1947A e;A)