Background
Maella Blalock was staying at a Super 8 Motel owned by SRKBS Hotel when she was injured by a stray bullet fired during an altercation in the parking lot. She sued the hotel and its owners for negligence, alleging failure to provide security, enforce policies, or train staff. The district court granted summary judgment for the hotel, ruling the harm was unforeseeable.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied Kansas negligence law, which generally does not impose a duty on business owners to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts unless the risk is foreseeable. Foreseeability depends on prior similar incidents, the location being a high crime area, or the adequacy of security measures. The court found the prior incidents cited by the plaintiff were not similar enough to the shooting, crime maps did not prove severity, and the hotel had some security measures in place. The court concluded that the lack of additional security alone does not create a duty under Kansas law.
The owner ordinarily has no liability for injuries inflicted upon patrons or customers by the criminal acts of third parties in the business’ parking lot, as the owner has no duty to provide security.
Seibert v. Vic Regnier Builders, Inc., 856 P.2d 1332, 1338 (Kan. 1993)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that business owners in Kansas are not insurers of patron safety against third-party crimes unless specific, highly similar prior incidents or high crime area conditions are proven.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download