Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittortappealpleasummary judgment
tortplaintiffnegligencemotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Bean v. BIC Corp., 597 So.2d 1350, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,163, 14 A.L.R.5th 984
View Case »
Ko v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., 58 Cal.App.5th 1144, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 906, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,026, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,578
View Case »
Virden v. Betts and Beer Const. Co., Inc., 656 N.W.2d 805
View Case »
Auslander Properties, LLC v. Nalley, 558 S.W.3d 457
View Case »
Cooper v. Rodriguez, 443 Md. 680, 118 A.3d 829
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Anderson v. Mandalay Corp., 131 Nev. 825, 358 P.3d 242, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 82

Facts

Cristie Anderson and her husband brought a lawsuit against Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino after Anderson was raped by hotel employee Alonzo Monroy Gonzalez in her hotel room. Anderson had checked into the hotel for a trade show and returned to her room intoxicated. After the assault, Gonzalez claimed he entered the room to clean up broken glass, but he later pleaded guilty to sexual assault. Evidence presented during the case indicated that Mandalay had prior knowledge of similar incidents involving its employees and had insufficient security measures in place.

Anderson came to Las Vegas on September 8, 2008, to attend a trade show on behalf of her employer. She checked into room 8916 at Mandalay. After performing some work-related duties, she and her coworkers went out for dinner and drinks. Anderson became intoxicated and returned to Mandalay around 2 a.m. on September 9, 2008. Surveillance footage shows that she and Gonzalez shared an elevator; both exited on the eighth floor. Anderson entered her room, shut the door behind her, and went to sleep.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether Gonzalez's conduct was reasonably foreseeable under NRS 41.745(1)(c) and whether Anderson's proposed amendments to her complaint would be futile.

We are also asked to determine whether the employee's criminal conduct was so unforeseeable that direct negligence claims against the employer would be futile.

Rule

NRS 41.745(1)(c) makes employers vicariously liable for employees' intentional torts if the conduct was reasonably foreseeable under the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature and scope of the employee's employment.

NRS 41.745(1)(c) makes employers vicariously liable for employees' intentional torts if a plaintiff can show the intentional conduct was 'reasonably foreseeable under the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature and scope of [the employee's] employment.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts surrounding Gonzalez's employment and the history of prior incidents at Mandalay Bay. It concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Gonzalez's actions were foreseeable given the hotel's knowledge of previous assaults by employees and the lack of adequate security measures. The court emphasized that the determination of reasonable foreseeability is typically a factual inquiry, which should be left to a jury.

Considering the prior on-premises attacks, employees' regular keycard abuse, Gonzalez's disciplinary history, and Mandalay's decision to provide Gonzalez keyed access to guest rooms with minimal supervision, a reasonable jury could conclude it was foreseeable that Gonzalez would abuse his keycard access to sexually assault a Mandalay guest.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Mandalay Bay and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Anderson to amend her complaint.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Who won?

Cristie Anderson prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeability of Gonzalez's conduct, which warranted further examination.

Anderson argues the district court erred in granting Mandalay's motion for summary judgment. Additionally, Anderson argues the district court erred in denying her leave to amend her complaint.

You must be