[ad_1]
Listen to this articleWhere a plaintiff who allegedly was sexually assaulted in a hotel room while she was a guest at a defendant resort and casino has asserted negligence claims against the resort and four of its codefendant employees, a motion by the defendants for summary judgment should be denied because it is reasonably likely that the plaintiff will be able to prove at trial that the harm she suffered was foreseeable.
“Encore Boston Harbor is a resort and casino located in Everett, Massachusetts. Plaintiff Maureen Doe (‘Plaintiff’) alleges that while she was a guest at the resort in January 2020, she was sexually assaulted in a hotel room. Plaintiff commenced this action against her purported assailant, Benjamin O’Connor (‘O’Connor’), alleging sexual assault (Count I) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II), and against Encore Boston Harbor, Wynn MA, LLC, Wynn Resorts, Ltd. (collectively, ‘Encore’), and four Encore employees (collectively, ‘Individual Defendants’), alleging negligence (Counts III and IV) and vicarious liability (Count VI). This action is before the court on Encore and the Individual Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Counts III, IV, and VI. For the following reasons, their motion is denied. …
“As a matter of law, Encore owed Plaintiff a duty because based on the totality of circumstances, the harm that Plaintiff allegedly suffered was a foreseeable consequence of Defendants’ conduct. …
“… Defendants rely primarily on Helfman v. Northeastern Univ., 485 Mass. 308 (2020). A close reading of this case demonstrates that Defendants’ reliance is misplaced. …
“… First, the summary judgment record supports the inference that Encore was aware of criminal acts on its premises, especially in the first six months after it opened. …
“Second, video from Encore’s cameras shows that O’Connor approached four other women in and around Encore in the fifteen minutes before he encountered Plaintiff, supporting the inference that he was a suspicious individual. …
“An examination of all of the circumstances supports the conclusion that Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty because the harm that she allegedly suffered was a reasonably foreseeable risk. … Defendants’ motion is accordingly denied.”
Doe v. Encore Boston Harbor, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-041-25) (10 pages) (Kazanjian, J.) (Middlesex Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 2381CV00747) (Sept. 19, 2025).
[ad_2]
Source link