Reprinted with permission from John R. Dent, Editor of HOSPITALITY LITIGATION NEWS. HOSPITALITY LITIGATION NEWS is a publication of Tuttle & Taylor--a law firm specializing in the hospitality industry.
An Illinois state appellate court has held that the Ritz-Carlton, Chicago is not liable for the sexual misconduct of two masseurs who, in separate incidents, went beyond massaging to inappropriate contact. One of the masseurs was convicted of criminal assault; the other (the spa director) was prosecuted but ultimately prevailed at the trial.
The victims of these two incidents sued the hotel. In a 2-to-1 decision, the court held that because the hotel would not have reasonably foreseen that the masseurs would sexually assault customers, the assaults were outside the scope of the masseur's employment and the hotel was therefore not directly liable. A dissenting judge argued that the hotel should have been liable because the hotel held out massage services to its guests, and profited from those services, thus creating the opportunity for assaults. The dissent further pointed out that the hotel required its masseurs to comply with the code of ethics of the American Massage Therapy Association, undermining the majority's assertion that sexual misconduct was not reasonably foreseeable.
(Sources: Stern v. Ritz Carlton, 1998 Ill. AppLEXIS 689)
Even with this victory, the hotel is not out of the woods yet. It's still facing a claim that it negligently hired the masseurs without investigating their backgrounds and otherwise failing to provide reasonable safeguards to prevent incidents such as these. That claim is still pending in the trail court.
Editor's note: The Ritz-Carlton, Chicago is not operated by the Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, which is a former client of Tuttle & Taylor
An Illinois state appellate court has held that the Ritz-Carlton, Chicago is not liable for the sexual misconduct of two masseurs who, in separate incidents, went beyond massaging to inappropriate contact. One of the masseurs was convicted of criminal assault; the other (the spa director) was prosecuted but ultimately prevailed at the trial.
The victims of these two incidents sued the hotel. In a 2-to-1 decision, the court held that because the hotel would not have reasonably foreseen that the masseurs would sexually assault customers, the assaults were outside the scope of the masseur's employment and the hotel was therefore not directly liable. A dissenting judge argued that the hotel should have been liable because the hotel held out massage services to its guests, and profited from those services, thus creating the opportunity for assaults. The dissent further pointed out that the hotel required its masseurs to comply with the code of ethics of the American Massage Therapy Association, undermining the majority's assertion that sexual misconduct was not reasonably foreseeable.
(Sources: Stern v. Ritz Carlton, 1998 Ill. AppLEXIS 689)
Even with this victory, the hotel is not out of the woods yet. It's still facing a claim that it negligently hired the masseurs without investigating their backgrounds and otherwise failing to provide reasonable safeguards to prevent incidents such as these. That claim is still pending in the trail court.
Editor's note: The Ritz-Carlton, Chicago is not operated by the Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, which is a former client of Tuttle & Taylor