McCarty v. Pheasant Run: hotel negligence and guest security duty

Negligence Tort Case Review

In 1981 Dula McCarty, while staying at the Pheasant Run Lodge, was attacked in her room. The intruder had gained access to her room through a sliding glass door that was lock but had a small safety chain attached. While Mrs. McCarty was out for dinner the intruder, who was never caught, pried open the sliding door, cut through the small chain, entered the room and attacked her upon her return. Mrs. McCarty sued the hotel claiming negligence on their part but the jury found in favor of the hotel. In 1987 she appealed the verdict to the 7th Circuit Court which upheld the original court's ruling. (McCarty v. Pheasant Run)

A tort can loosely be defined as an action by one person against another that results in harm to the second person, and in general there are three types of torts: intentional, negligence, and strict liability. While Mrs. McCarty did suffer a grievous tort, in her claim against the hotel it could not be asserted that the tort was intentional. For Mrs. McCarty to have been successful in a claim of an intentional tort, the hotel must have demonstrated "willful misconduct or intentional wrongdoing." (Van Devort, 2000, p.121) Instead, Mrs. McCarty claimed that the hotel failed in its duty to show her the sliding door and make certain it was locked when she first entered the room, provide an adequate lock and enough security guards, and to make her room inaccessible from the outside walkway. She claimed that the hotel had a duty to protect its guests but chose not to take adequate steps and had reasonable knowledge that not doing so would result in harm to their guests. In other words, they had committed a negligence tort.

In defense of the hotel, Illinois law stated that a plaintiff was not negligent unless they acted in an unreasonable manner, defined as "the failure to take precautions that would generate greater benefits in avoiding accidents that the precautions would cost." (862 F.2d 1554) Mrs. McCarty claimed that she was not informed that there was a sliding door and that it must have been unlocked when she entered the room. However, the jury decided that the hotel had provided adequate security and, by not securing her room personally, she had not acted in a reasonable manner herself in order to protect herself. Her claim that better locks could have prevented the attack was not backed up by cost estimates proving that the cost would have been worth the increased safety. As the sliding doors opened on a walkway, not a balcony, which led to a fire escape, her claim that having a walkway which led to the ground floor was negligent was not accepted as it was the only means of escape if there was a fire.