SEXUAL ASSAULT WASN’T FORESEEABLE
C.M. was sexually assaulted by a patron posing as a masseur at the Defendant’s "spa/bathhouse." When she later filed a personal-injury case against the company, the latter asked the New York County Supreme Court to dismiss the case (i.e., to grant pre-trial relief in its favor).
When that request was denied, the spa appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which was of the view the court below had committed reversible error.
The AD1 noted that while landowners have a duty to act in a “reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property,” they must not only be able to “control” the perpetrators of the purported misconduct, but they must be “reasonably aware of the need for such control.”
In this instance, since C.M. was unable to show that the same or similar conduct had previously occurred (and was thus “foreseeable”) and given there was no legal obligation to protect C.M. from “unforeseeable and unexpected assaults,” the AD1 thought relief should have been granted in the spa’s favor and the case was thrown out.
Was there no other way to massage that?
# # #