Federal judge dismisses Radisson Blu assault lawsuit

Two sisters staying at the Radisson Blu Minneapolis Downtown hotel were viciously assaulted by men who gained access to their hotel room. The women filed suit against the hotel management company and security provider. In an Oct. 3 ruling, the U.S. District Court for Minnesota concluded that the attacks were not foreseeable and that the defendants did not commit malfeasance.

Dominique Behr and Tessa Behr spent the evening at the Radisson Blu in February 2021. They checked in and left for a short time. While they were away, however, five men gained access to their hotel room.

According to the ruling’s fact summary, in the seven months before the assaults, the hotel had several interactions with law enforcement. Police had been called for domestic abuse, stabbing, robbery, drug activity, and assaults.

The hotel had security, and there was a security guard present on the day of the assaults. The five men entered the hotel around 1 a.m. They had dark clothing, kept their hands in their pockets, and two were wearing masks. One of the men was stumbling.

All of the men looked young, and in fact, four were 18 and one was under 18. Hotel renters must be 21 years or older. Additionally, Hennepin County implements a weekend curfew of midnight for 15-17-year-olds.

However, one of the males presented a room key and was allowed to enter the hotel. The guard did not verify that the men were registered with the hotel or what their names were.

The sisters returned to the hotel room and encountered the men. Over the period of several hours, the men physically and sexually assaulted them. Tessa Behr was shot multiple times.

The Behrs filed suit against Radisson Hotels Management Company, which was the successor entity, as well as G4S Secure Solutions, which provided security services for the hotel. The sisters claimed that both defendants were negligent and liable for the injuries that they suffered.

Defendants moved to dismiss, which the court had granted in May, finding that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the assaults the sisters suffered were foreseeable.

The sisters filed a second amended complaint that added allegations about the assailants and the hotel’s security policies. The court granted the motion to dismiss on Oct. 3, finding that the complaint did not show that the assaults were foreseeable or that either of the defendants committed malfeasance. For instance, in the complaint, the sisters added that the men wore dark clothing. “It is difficult to understand why wearing dark clothing or the other items might conceivably (much more plausibly) suggest impending violent behavior,” Judge Eric Tostrud wrote.

The sisters also raised the fact that the men wore masks and had their hands in their pockets, both of which had possible alternative explanations. Regarding the masks, Tostrud noted that during this time, many people had COVID-19 masks and Minnesota mandated their use in hotel lobbies. Additionally, putting hands in one’s pockets “describes common behavior, especially on a winter evening in Minnesota.”

Regarding the male who looked drunk, Tostrud found that there were no indication that he was violent. “He was stumbling and looked drunk; that did not make an assault plausibly foreseeable,” Tostrud stated. Even though the man was under legal drinking age, Tostrud did not find it more likely that breaking the drinking law would necessarily lead someone to be more violent.

Nor was the fact that the men were out during curfew hours persuasive. While Tostrud noted the ordinance’s statement that juveniles have engaged in more violent crimes, and that a significant amount of those crime occur during curfew hours, that this was “not enough to make the assaults foreseeable.”

The court dismissed the second, amended complaint with prejudice.