The Louisiana Supreme Court has reversed a lower appeals court ruling, reinstating a trial court decision saying a luxury New Orleans hotel fulfilled its a duty to a guest who was injured during a robbery in its courtyard.
In a March 21 opinion, the court ruled Windsor Court Hotel had done its part to take reasonable precautions against criminals. William Campbell had sued the hotel after he was injured during a robbery on Christmas Day 2008. He accused the hotel of negligence and strict liability based on the hotel’s status as an innkeeper.
“Our focus in this case is on whether the Windsor Court owed a duty to Mr. Campbell and, if so, whether the risk of harm encountered by Mr. Campbell fell within the scope of that duty,” Justice Jay B. McCallum wrote in the opinion. “That is, if we find the Windsor Court owed a duty to Mr. Campbell, we then consider whether the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by that duty.
“After our de novo review of the record, we find that the Windsor Court owed a duty in this case … to take reasonable precautions against the criminal acts of third parties; i.e., to provide a reasonably safe premises to its guests.
“However, we find that the scope of the Windsor Court’s duty did not encompass the risk of the particular harm Mr. Campbell suffered. The Windsor Court met its burden on summary judgment by showing a lack of factual support for an essential element of Mr. Campbell’s claim.”
In the opinion, McCallum says Campbell then failed to produce factual support sufficient to establish he would be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, meaning the trial court properly granted the hotel’s summary judgment motion and the appellate court erred in reversing that judgment.
Thus, the Supreme Court vacated the appellate court’s judgment and reinstated the trial court’s judgment granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The Windsor Court is a luxury hotel located on Gravier Street in New Orleans. A courtyard with two arched driveways and a walk-in pedestrian entrance stand as its main entrances. Other than these openings, the courtyard is enclosed by a wall about 14 feet tall. Campbell was a frequent guest because of his job.
At about 2 a.m. on Christmas Day 2008, Campbell was walking back to the hotel after spending time at Harrah’s Casino across the street. He says he noticed an “unfamiliar car parked in the drive” with two “unknown female” occupants in the courtyard. One of the females called to him, and he initially ignored her.
But Campbell “decided to be a good Samaritan and approach the vehicle to offer assistance,” the opinion states. “He walked to the car and had a brief conversation with its occupants, when ‘suddenly and without warning, (he) was robbed.’ He was injured when the car sped away, trapping him halfway inside the car as he tried to retrieve a ‘substantial amount of cash’ that was stolen from him before he fell to the street.”
Surveillance videos confirmed the robbery.
“Approximately six seconds after he reached the car, Mr. Campbell pulled from his pocket that ‘substantial amount of cash’ and appeared to show the cash to the occupants of the car,” the opinion states. “He put the cash back into his pocket and leaned toward the car where he remained for one minute and forty-six seconds, appearing to engage in conversation with the car’s occupants.
“At that point, Mr. Campbell again reached into his pocket and retrieved the cash. Mr. Campbell does not dispute this fact. Within two seconds of Mr. Campbell’s appearing to again show the money to the car’s occupants, the car began to drive away, dragging him with it. There is no dispute that, prior to driving off, one of the car’s occupants seized the cash from Mr. Campbell’s hands.”
In his deposition, Campbell said the girl on the passenger side grabbed the money, but he wasn’t going to let go of it.
“We wound up at a tagging match [sic], and I wound up being pulled into the car,” he testified. “Half my body was inside that car. ... And then she stepped on the ... accelerator. … So I turned loose and fell on the pavement.”
Campbell asserted claims of negligence and strict liability against Windsor Court for allowing a dangerous condition to exist, failing to properly warn, maintain and secure the premises, failing to warn guests of a dangerous condition on the premises, failing to ensure the safety of its guests; failing to provide adequate security, and “(h)osting inadequate lighting in the courtyard.
In 2022, Windsor Court filed a summary judgment motion which the trial court granted, saying Campbell “failed to meet his burden of proving that there was a legal duty to protect him against this specific criminal act.”
But the lower appeals court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether “this particular incident was not foreseeable, thus, imposing a duty of protection on Windsor Court.” Windsor Court then filed a writ application with the Supreme Court.
“We find that the robbery at issue was not reasonably foreseeable and any duty owed by the Windsor Court did not encompass the risk of harm Mr. Campbell encountered or that Mr. Campbell’s own actions would precipitate his injury,” McCallum wrote. “First, the Windsor Court introduced uncontroverted evidence that there has been no crime whatsoever on the premises of the Windsor Court in twenty years (either inside the hotel or in its courtyard). …
“Second, a consideration of the other factors (location, nature, and condition of property) do not support a finding that the robbery was foreseeable. No evidence was introduced to suggest that the hotel is located in an area known for crime. Nor was there evidence that the nature or condition of the property made the robbery foreseeable.”
The court also didn’t agree that Campbell’s argument about lack of sufficient lighting and lack of security guards.
“Moreover, even if New Orleans, as a whole, had a very high crime rate at the time of the incident, accepting this as a factor supporting foreseeability would render virtually all crime in the City of New Orleans foreseeable,” McCallum wrote. “A city’s reputation for a high crime rate, absent evidence to the contrary, does not allow the inference that every location is as vulnerable as the next. …
“It was not the case that Mr. Campbell was unexpectedly accosted. To the contrary, Mr. Campbell’s own actions placed him in grave peril. … More importantly, whether Windsor Court prides itself as being safe, this does not negate that it was Mr. Campbell’s own actions, and not any inaction by the Windsor Court, that gave rise to the incident.”
Louisiana Supreme Court case number 2024-C-00840