Court Opinion

ID: 9711362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:30:19.474348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:04.168496
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, J.,
concurring.
I understand the majority opinion to hold that, based on the materials presented for purposes of summary judgment, the trial court did not err in finding that Lux-bury Hotels, Inc., had no duty to take reasonable care to protect the plaintiff from the particular criminal act involved in this case. I respectfully disagree with the dissent’s interpretation that the majority holds that the hotel owes no duty not to disclose a room number.
I agree with the dissent that every hotel operator owes a duty to its guests (and its guests’ guests) to take reasonable steps to preserve their safety against foreseeable harm. I also agree that the issue of whether it is unreasonable to give out a guest’s room number is not subject to blanket resolution but rather is an issue of fact for trial. But these principles, in my view, are not contrary to the majority opinion.
*362Uncontested issues of fact are subject to summary judgment. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the hotel presented an affidavit of an employee stating that she had worked at the location since the hotel opened and that she was “aware of no other incident similar to this one.” In response, the plaintiff presented no evidence tending to show that the hotel had prior actual or constructive knowledge of a foreseeable, increased risk of crime resulting from providing guest room numbers. I, therefore, agree with the majority that there is no evidence in the record upon which the trial judge could have found that the hotel had a duty, based on a premises liability theory, to protect the plaintiff in this case.
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs.