Written and reviewed by Josh Kohanim, Esq., California Bar No. 328609 · Published · Reviewed
In this guide
This page was checked against the 2026 jury instructions and the cases and statutes it cites on November 11, 2026. It covers guests and visitors attacked at a hotel or motel by another guest, an intruder or a hotel worker. Injuries from a fall, a pool or another unsafe condition follow the rules on our Los Angeles premises liability lawyer page, and the Los Angeles negligent security lawyer page explains the claim as a whole.
The innkeeper duty
California law has long recognized that an innkeeper must protect its guests. The California Supreme Court quoted the rule in Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490: "Traditionally, a landlord had no duty to protect his tenants from the criminal acts of others, but an innkeeper was under a duty to protect his guests" (O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, 802). The duty is reasonable care, not a guarantee. A business is not an insurer of its guests' safety, "but he is required to exercise reasonable care for their safety" (Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 114, 121, as quoted in CACI No. 1005). A hotel answers for the crime it could anticipate, not for every crime.
The rule for hotels
California's jury instruction on crime on property, CACI No. 1005 (2026 edition), says that a landlord or the owner of a business open to the public "must use reasonable care to protect" tenants, guests or patrons "from another person's criminal conduct on" the property "if the [owner/landlord] can reasonably anticipate that conduct." Whether that duty exists is decided by the judge; whether the steps the owner took were "adequate and reasonable under the circumstances" is decided by the jury.
Guards and patrols take more proof. In Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, the California Supreme Court held that the foreseeability needed to require guards "rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises." Earlier assaults, robberies or break-ins at the same hotel are the usual proof.
Staff response to a threat
A hotel that learns an attack is coming or under way must take simple steps, even when it had no duty to hire guards. In Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, the California Supreme Court held that a business with notice of an impending assault must take "reasonable, relatively simple, and minimally burdensome steps to attempt to avert that danger." In Morris v. De La Torre (2005) 36 Cal.4th 260, it held that, as a general matter, the duty includes calling 911 or taking similar minimal steps, because "placing a 911 call is a well recognized and generally minimally burdensome method of seeking assistance." A front desk that ignores a guest's report of a threat can fit these cases.
Guests and visitors
The duty is not limited to the person whose name is on the reservation. CACI No. 1005 covers the patrons and guests of a business open to the public, and its notes quote the rule for a business that holds land "open to the public for entry for his business purposes": it is subject to liability "to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose" for harm caused by "intentionally harmful acts of third persons" when it fails to use reasonable care (Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, quoting the Restatement of Torts, section 344, as quoted in CACI No. 1005). Diners, event guests and people using the pool or parking fit that description, and so, in our view, does a person visiting a registered guest with the hotel's permission. Why the person was on the property is the question.
Key and door control
Room keys and door hardware are the hotel's to control, and a lapse in either can let an attacker reach a guest. Key questions include whether the desk checked identification before making a key, whether keys for a past guest or a former worker were cancelled, and whether master keys were tracked. Door questions include broken latches, dead bolts or door guards, connecting doors, and side or stairwell doors left propped open. Courts weigh a security step's cost against how foreseeable the crime was, and where "the harm can be prevented by simple means, a lesser degree of foreseeability may be required" (Ann M., 6 Cal.4th at 678 to 679, as quoted in CACI No. 1005). In our view, making a room key for someone who has not shown they belong in that room is that kind of simple lapse.
Room access records
Electronic door locks and key card systems, like the fob and gate systems in apartment buildings, can keep logs of which keys were made, when, and which doors they opened. Those logs, the desk's key records, registration notes, hallway and lobby video, incident reports and any security patrol logs show who could reach the room. Private camera and access systems keep records only as long as their settings allow, so a written preservation request should go to the owner, the operator and any security or lock vendor at once. Our negligent security evidence checklist lists each record and who holds it.
Hotel brands and franchisees
The name on the sign does not by itself make the brand responsible. The hotel's owner and operator are usually the responsible companies; a brand can be responsible when it controlled the practice at issue. The rule comes from franchise law. In Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474, 497 to 498, the California Supreme Court held a franchisor liable for a franchisee's employees "only if it has retained or assumed a general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of the franchisee's employees." Patterson was a workplace harassment case at a franchised pizza store, so how it applies to hotel security is a question for each case. The franchise agreement and the brand's manuals show how much control the brand kept.
Companies behind a hotel
Control decides which company answers for a security failure, because "control alone is sufficient" (Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162, as quoted in CACI No. 1000). Under CACI No. 1002, a company controls property it does not own "when the person uses the property as if it were the person's own." The table is the firm's summary of the companies that may be involved in a hotel or motel case.
| Company | Usual role | What can make it responsible |
|---|---|---|
| Property owner | Owns the land and building, often through a single-property company | Control of the property and its security, directly or through the companies it hires |
| Operating or management company | Runs the hotel day to day, including the front desk, keys, staff and security | Its own control of keys, staffing and the response to threats |
| Brand or franchisor | Licenses the name and sets brand standards | Control over the practice that failed, such as key or security procedures (Patterson, 2014) |
| Security contractor | Provides guards or patrols under a contract | Failing to use reasonable care in the services it undertook (CACI No. 450C) |
| Parking operator | Runs the garage or lot under a contract | Control of the parking area where the attack happened |
Attacks by hotel staff
When a hotel worker commits the attack, the questions shift to how the worker was hired, supervised and given access. In Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, a case about an apartment owner's manager and night security guard, the Court of Appeal said an employer may be liable for a guard's assaults "if the employer negligently hired the guard or negligently placed him in a position to commit foreseeable harmful acts," and it reversed a summary judgment for the owners. In our view, a worker given master keys despite a known history of violence fits that description. Our guide to security guard and security company liability covers guards hired by the hotel.
Sexual assault at hotels
A sexual assault at a hotel or motel can support a claim against the companies whose security failed, not only against the attacker. California gives a survivor who was 18 or older a longer period to sue than the usual two years (Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16), and the statute preserves "causes of action against persons or entities other than the alleged person who committed the crime." Under the same section, a criminal prosecution or conviction is not required. Our guide to sexual assault on someone else's property explains the time limits in full. The contact form on this page has no box for describing what happened.
Revival windows for older claims
Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16(b)(3) revived claims based on a sexual assault that happened on or after January 1, 2009, when the survivor was an adult, that had been barred only because the time limit ran out. Under the statute, those revived claims "may be commenced until December 31, 2026." A second window, in section 340.16(e), runs from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027. It revives adult sexual assault claims that were barred before January 1, 2026 because the time limit ran out, against an entity that "engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault" by the same perpetrator, and against the perpetrator. The second window does not revive a claim against a public entity (section 340.16(e)(7)(C)), and a claim against a public entity also requires a written government claim, generally within six months (Government Code section 911.2). These dates were checked against the statute on November 11, 2026; whether a particular claim qualifies is a question for a lawyer.
This section states the law as of November 11, 2026, the date this page was checked. The sexual assault guide explains who the windows can reach.
Insurance and exclusions
Some liability policies exclude claims based on an assault or battery, and some limit them to a smaller amount. A California Court of Appeal held that such an exclusion applied "no matter who commits" the assault and whatever legal theory the injured person uses (Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 121). Identifying every policy, including policies held by a security company or a management company, is part of the early work in these cases. Our guide to insurance and who pays covers each company's coverage.
The attacker's share of fault
In California, a jury can assign part of the fault to the attacker. Each defendant pays only its own share of noneconomic damages, such as pain and emotional distress (Civil Code section 1431.2), and a Court of Appeal has applied that rule to a bar whose patron was assaulted by a third person (Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1). Economic damages, such as medical bills and lost earnings, are not divided this way. The hotel's own share depends on what it knew and what it failed to do.
Filing deadlines
Most California injury lawsuits must be filed within two years of the injury (Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1). A claim based on a sexual assault has a longer period, and a family's claim after a fatal attack usually runs from the date of death; our Los Angeles wrongful death lawyer page explains who can bring it. Our guide to negligent security deadlines lists each period, and the deadline calculator gives a date to check with a lawyer. The dates in any one case should be calculated by a lawyer.
No fee unless we recover. If there is no recovery, you owe no fee and no case costs.
Sources cited
- Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), 2026 edition, Nos. 450C, 1000, 1002 and 1005: courts.ca.gov
- Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490: CourtListener
- O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798: CourtListener
- Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666: CourtListener
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224: CourtListener
- Morris v. De La Torre (2005) 36 Cal.4th 260: CourtListener
- Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474: CourtListener
- Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936: CourtListener
- Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16: california.public.law
- Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 121: CourtListener
- Civil Code section 1431.2: california.public.law
- Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1: CourtListener
- Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1: california.public.law