Opinion ID: 3013825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: (2) An innkeeper is under a similar

Text: duty to his guests. The American Law Institute’s Restatement of Law provides the rules of (3) A possessor of land who holds it decision for the Virgin Islands “in the open to the public is under a absence of local laws to the contrary.” 1 similar duty to members of the V.I.C. § 4. Because there are no public who enter in response to applicable local laws to the contrary, we his invitation. apply The Restatement (Second) of Torts. Id. Comment c to § 314A further The general rule is that one owes no duty provides: to protect, and thus no duty to warn, The rules stated in this Section apply only where the relation exists 1. Fabend and his expert witness claim between the parties, and the risk of that many Cinnamon Bay beach guests harm, or of further harm, arises in have fallen victim to this shorebreak and the course of that relation. A received serious injuries, although they carrier is under no duty to one who only specifically mention and document has left the vehicle and ceased to be one such injury. a passenger, nor is an innkeeper 3 under a duty to a guest who is hotel owed a duty to protect a patron from injured or endangered while he is a criminal assault by a third party when the away from the premises. Nor is a patron was just outside the entrance doors possessor of land under any such to the hotel on a public sidewalk. Id. at duty to one who has ceased to be an 215. The hotel’s security department had invitee. been made aware of reports of a number of incidents at the entrance, and the owner of Id. the property had also received a As Comment c makes clear, the duty to recommendation to station a guard at the protect, and hence the duty to warn, exists entrance. Id. at 218-19. The property only where the risk arises from the owner contracted with the hotel to hire relationship, and it is not alone sufficient men for the purpose of adopting new that a guest is exposed to a risk during the security measures in areas outside the period he remains such. People hotel’s premises, including the area where undoubtedly come to Cinnamon Bay the decedent was killed. Id. at 219. When Campground to engage in numerous the decedent’s wife and children sued for recreational activities on St. John and the wrongful death, the court concluded that surrounding waters – hiking, sailing, deep the hotel’s power to take security measures sea fishing, snorkeling, and sunbathing, as put it in sufficient control of the entrance well as body surfing. This does not mean, to impose a duty on it to take reasonable however, that Caneel and Rosewood have measures to protect its guests from harm a duty to warn guests of all of the non- and/or to warn them of dangerous obvious risks associated with these conditions. activities. A risk arises in the course of the Although Banks involves the death of relationship only if it occurs on the a guest from the actions of a third party, it relevant premises. Id. nonetheless states a principle that is Our inquiry into whether appellees had relevant to the question before us, which it a duty to warn Fabend of the shorebreak calls the “sphere of control” test. That is condition begins with the question of to say, when an innkeeper possesses or whether Cinnamon Bay beach and the exercises sufficient control over the adjacent bay should be considered part of property adjacent to his premises, he has the “premises” of the campground. To the power to take protective measures to answer this question, courts have applied reduce the risk of injury on that property. the “sphere of control” concept to Having such power, the innkeeper has a determine whether a duty exists in various duty to exercise it to the benefit of his types of innkeeper liability cases. In patrons. Banks v. Hyatt Corp., 722 F.2d 214 (5th The specific factual setting of a case Cir. 1984), for example, the Fifth Circuit will ultimately dictate whether a party is in Court of Appeals applied a sphere of the position to control or has the power to control test when considering whether a 4 control land adjacent to his property such Manahan Court adopted the position that that a duty to protect or warn arises. See “an innkeeper is not an insurer against all id. at 227. The “sphere of control” test risk of injury to its guests, but is obligated requires that we look at the circumstances only to take reasonable steps to minimize of the case to ascertain whether sufficient risks that are foreseeable to its guests when control exists over the adjacent premises. they are reasonably within its sphere of Relevant indicia of control include who is control.” 821 F. Supp. at 1109 (emphasis responsible for the safety of guests, who added). has the authority to dictate who may use We have, however, used a standard the property, and whether the guests were similar to “sphere of control” in cases invited by the property owners to use the involving railroad-related injuries. For adjacent land. See Pacheco v. United example, in Estate of Zimmerman v. States, 220 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. SEPTA, we held that a defendant did not 2000). If, for example, an innkeeper owe a duty of care to someone injured on leases property to operate a hotel, but the railroad tracks that the defendant neither government retains control over the land owned nor controlled, even though the for the use of general public, the innkeeper defendant might have used the tracks. 168 must only warn guests of dangers on the F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 1999). We held leased property and the ingress or egress that “[t]he duty to protect against known therefrom. See Stedman v. Spiros, 161 dangerous conditions falls upon the N.E. 2d 590 (Ill. App. 1959), cited in possessor of the land.” Id. at 684. Banks, 722 F.2d at 223-24; see also Jones Quoting the Restatement, we defined a v. Halekulani Hotel, Inc., 557 F.2d 1308, “possessor” of land as someone who 1311 (9th Cir. 1977) (finding that a hotel “occupies the land with the intent to had no duty to protect someone who was control it.” Id. injured diving from a seawall owned by the hotel but used as a public easement Consistent with the approach taken in “[b]ecause the hotel had no right to control Banks, Manahan, and Zimmerman, we the use of the public thoroughfare . . . hold that defendants only had a duty to [and] [i]t is inequitable to impose a duty of warn Fabend if the beach and the adjacent maintenance on one without authority to bay were under their “sphere of control.” control use”). The beach was within their “sphere of control” if they had the legal right to Though we have never explicitly control the conditions and use of the area, adopted the Banks test, the District Court or possessed the area and evidenced an of the Virgin Islands followed it in an intent to control it even absent clear legal earlier case, which we affirmed without authority. In conducting this inquiry, we opinion. See Manahan v. NWA, 821 F. consider who had the legal authority to Supp. 1105, 1108-09 (D.V.I. 1992) control the area, including the right to (affirmed without opinion at 1993 U.S. control access, establish rules for use, and App. LEXIS 14348 (3d Cir. 1993)). The 5 mitigate or warn of any dangerous swimming area and that, accordingly, this conditions. We also consider the de facto area must be considered a part of their control the defendants exercised over the premises. The problem with this theory is area, and whether these actions were that all of the conduct of Caneel and consistent with the terms of the legal Rosewood is consistent with their limited relationship that placed control with the license and there is no evidence from National Park Service. which a jury could find that they exercised control over the swimming area.2