Ryan Taboada was shot eight times in the process of a carjacking in a Roanoke, Virginia, Holiday Inn Express parking lot; his assailant, Derrick Wakie Smith, has since pleaded guilty to attempted capital murder and many other felonies. But Taboada’s lawsuit blames the hotel owners, claiming “that police officials warned the business… that the property’s location posed certain dangers to its customers.” (Christina Rogers, “Virginia Supreme Court rules shooting victim can sue motel”, Roanoke Times, Mar. 7; Ryan Taboada v. Daly Seven, Inc. (Va. Mar. 3, 2006)). Previous Virginia law only imposed a duty when the danger was “imminent.”
Deep pocket files: You can always move the hotel, right?
Ryan Taboada was shot eight times in the process of a carjacking in a Roanoke, Virginia, Holiday Inn Express parking lot; his assailant, Derrick Wakie Smith, has since pleaded guilty to attempted capital murder and many other felonies. But Taboada’s lawsuit blames the hotel owners, claiming “that police officials warned the business… that the property’s […]
5 Comments
You neglect to bring up that common carriers are assigned a higher duty and standard of care to invitees because they are responsible for the public, similar to bus drivers etc.
Additionally, you forgot to mention that the police had been called out for similar incidents over 90 times.
Because the hotel created the perilious environment that led to the injuries of the victim, and falsely advertised their hotel as “safe”, when it clearly wasn’t, this isn’t a frivolous lawsuit at all.
I didn’t neglect anything. As I noted, previous Virginia law only imposed a duty when the danger was “imminent,” and I have a link to the opinion and its full discussion of the case. Adding the words “common carrier” doesn’t change anything.
The hotel did not “create the perilous environment.” A carjacker who shoots his victim without provocation eight times, drives off with a child in the backseat, and crashes the car in a few blocks is not going to be deterred by a rent-a-cop and a security camera.
There were not “ninety similar incidents” of carjackings at the hotel, and I hope you’re not suggesting a rule whereby a hotel is potentially liable for every crime on its property because it calls the police to evict a trespasser an average of once every two weeks.
I also didn’t call the lawsuit frivolous. I merely noted its existence and the implicit demand that hotels abandon low-income areas.
As someone who is from the Roanoke Valley born and raised, the location of the HIE in question is not in an area I would have chosen for a hotel. I’ve known this since I was a child. (I’m 56 now)
While fairly close to a very active commerical area, civic center,etc is does set in the fringes of an area that 1) I wouldn’t want to walk through alone, 2) is within a few blocks of an area that is well known to house a number of “crack houses” .
Had it been my investment going into building the hotel, I personally would have chosen elsewhere. I remember being surprised after being away from Roanoke for a period of time, returning and seeing they had located the hotel where it was. This one is going to be interesting.
Big chain stores have often been targeted for not building in “economically depressed” areas. I don’t know if there has been any litigation surrounding this, but it seems like the hotel would be put in a very awkward situation.
If the city allowed the hotel to be built in a “questionable” area of town that they could not protect, I know who I’d be filing a second lawsuit against!
The Big pockets!
As a hotel owner, I’d hand the plantiff the keys and wish him good luck. Let him know that all staff has been dismissed by my company and his shift starts in 15 minutes!