Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Shannon Dugan v. Hyatt Corporation d/b/a/ Hyatt Regency St. Louis at the Arch
Date: 12-03-2024
Case Number: 1822-CC00663
Judge: Timothy J. Boyer
Court: Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best St. Louis Personal Injury Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
On April 19, 2016, at the Hyatt Regency hotel in downtown St. Louis, Hyatt security guard D.W, used his master key to sneak into respondent Shannon Dugan's hotel room while she slept to sexually assault her. In her petition against Hyatt, Dugan brought claims for negligent hiring of D.W., negligent supervision of D.W., and negligent training and supervision of Hyatt security employees which she claimed led to the assault.
* * *
"The standard of review of a trial court's denial of motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are treated the same." Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, 608 S.W.3d 663, 711 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). "We must determine whether the plaintiff made a submissible case." Id. (internal quotations omitted). "Whether there is sufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages is a question of law, and this Court's review is de novo." Gilliland v. Mo. Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516, 520 (Mo. banc 2009). We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Rhoden, 621 S.W.3d at 477.
Punitive damages are designed to inflict punishment and to serve as an example and a deterrent to similar conduct. Call v. Heard, 925 S.W.2d 840, 849 (Mo. banc 1996). To recover punitive damages in a negligence action, "the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant showed a complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others." Ingham, 608 S.W.3d at 714 (quoting Poage v. Crane Co., 523 S.W.3d 496, 515 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017)). This claim must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Id. "[C]lear and convincing evidence is that which tilts the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition; evidence which clearly convinces the fact finder of the truth of the proposition to be proved." Id. at 714-15 (quoting Cook v. Polineni, 967 S.W.2d 687, 690-91 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998)). In determining whether a plaintiff has met his or her burden, a court must consider "whether the evidence-giving full play to the jury's right to determine credibility, weigh the evidence and draw justifiable inferences of fact-is sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the plaintiff established with convincing clarity-that is, that it was highly probable-that the defendant's conduct was outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference. Id. at 715 (quoting Peters v. Gen. Motors Corp., 200 S.W.3d 1,25 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)).
* * *
TORT LAW. NEGLIGENT HIRING. The case addresses the issue of whether the appellant, Hyatt Corporation, could be held liable for negligent hiring due to its failure to discover a security guard's prior criminal investigations for sexual misconduct, which led to the guard's assault of a hotel guest.
TORT LAW. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION. The court evaluated whether the verdict-directing instructions for negligent supervision claims against Hyatt Corporation were defective for failing to include certain ultimate facts, considering the security guard acted outside the scope of his employment, which the court found properly omitted as they were part of a legal determination.
TORT LAW. PUNITIVE DAMAGES. The case examines the sufficiency of the evidence to support punitive damages for negligent supervision and training claims, focusing on Hyatt's pre-assault failures to enforce its policies and its post-assault conduct that showed a conscious disregard for the safety of the guest.
EVIDENCE. RELEVANCE AND HEARSAY. The court assessed the admissibility of evidence regarding the security guard's past criminal history, determining it was relevant to the negligent hiring claim and not hearsay, impacting the appellant's appeal due to the nature of their objections at trial.
Key Phrases Negligent supervision. Criminal history evidence. Duty to supervise. Innkeeper's duty. Punitive damages.
St. Louis, Missouri personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a negligence thoery.
On April 19, 2016, at the Hyatt Regency hotel in downtown St. Louis, Hyatt security guard D.W, used his master key to sneak into respondent Shannon Dugan's hotel room while she slept to sexually assault her. In her petition against Hyatt, Dugan brought claims for negligent hiring of D.W., negligent supervision of D.W., and negligent training and supervision of Hyatt security employees which she claimed led to the assault.
* * *
"The standard of review of a trial court's denial of motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are treated the same." Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, 608 S.W.3d 663, 711 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). "We must determine whether the plaintiff made a submissible case." Id. (internal quotations omitted). "Whether there is sufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages is a question of law, and this Court's review is de novo." Gilliland v. Mo. Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516, 520 (Mo. banc 2009). We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Rhoden, 621 S.W.3d at 477.
Punitive damages are designed to inflict punishment and to serve as an example and a deterrent to similar conduct. Call v. Heard, 925 S.W.2d 840, 849 (Mo. banc 1996). To recover punitive damages in a negligence action, "the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant showed a complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others." Ingham, 608 S.W.3d at 714 (quoting Poage v. Crane Co., 523 S.W.3d 496, 515 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017)). This claim must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Id. "[C]lear and convincing evidence is that which tilts the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition; evidence which clearly convinces the fact finder of the truth of the proposition to be proved." Id. at 714-15 (quoting Cook v. Polineni, 967 S.W.2d 687, 690-91 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998)). In determining whether a plaintiff has met his or her burden, a court must consider "whether the evidence-giving full play to the jury's right to determine credibility, weigh the evidence and draw justifiable inferences of fact-is sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the plaintiff established with convincing clarity-that is, that it was highly probable-that the defendant's conduct was outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference. Id. at 715 (quoting Peters v. Gen. Motors Corp., 200 S.W.3d 1,25 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)).
* * *
TORT LAW. NEGLIGENT HIRING. The case addresses the issue of whether the appellant, Hyatt Corporation, could be held liable for negligent hiring due to its failure to discover a security guard's prior criminal investigations for sexual misconduct, which led to the guard's assault of a hotel guest.
TORT LAW. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION. The court evaluated whether the verdict-directing instructions for negligent supervision claims against Hyatt Corporation were defective for failing to include certain ultimate facts, considering the security guard acted outside the scope of his employment, which the court found properly omitted as they were part of a legal determination.
TORT LAW. PUNITIVE DAMAGES. The case examines the sufficiency of the evidence to support punitive damages for negligent supervision and training claims, focusing on Hyatt's pre-assault failures to enforce its policies and its post-assault conduct that showed a conscious disregard for the safety of the guest.
EVIDENCE. RELEVANCE AND HEARSAY. The court assessed the admissibility of evidence regarding the security guard's past criminal history, determining it was relevant to the negligent hiring claim and not hearsay, impacting the appellant's appeal due to the nature of their objections at trial.
Key Phrases Negligent supervision. Criminal history evidence. Duty to supervise. Innkeeper's duty. Punitive damages.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Shannon Dugan v. Hyatt Corporation d/b/a/ Hyatt Regency S...?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard Shannon Dugan v. Hyatt Corporation d/b/a/ Hyatt Regency S...?
This case was heard in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, MO. The presiding judge was Timothy J. Boyer.
Who were the attorneys in Shannon Dugan v. Hyatt Corporation d/b/a/ Hyatt Regency S...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best St. Louis Personal Injury Lawyer Directory.
When was Shannon Dugan v. Hyatt Corporation d/b/a/ Hyatt Regency S... decided?
This case was decided on December 3, 2024.