Loading
Hospitality
10 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Hospitality, Hotel, Premises Liability, Security, Franchise
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
North Carolina State
Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc., et al. is a North Carolina hotel premises liability case involving room-key access, front-desk verification, overnight staffing, employee training, and alleged operational negligence. The case arose from an April 19, 2020 incident at a Residence Inn in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Hall, an overnight hotel guest, alleged that a hotel clerk gave a key card to her room to an intoxicated visitor whose identification did not match the registered guest information. Hall alleged that the visitor then used the key card to enter her room and sexually assault her.
Hall filed a civil lawsuit in Forsyth County Superior Court against Marriott International, Inc., BPR Winston Salem LLC d/b/a Residence Inn, BPR Management, Inc., Terrell Leon Simmons, and William Shannon Rubush, the front-desk worker involved in the room-key transaction. Her claims focused on whether hotel staff followed reasonable identity-verification procedures, whether overnight staffing created an avoidable guest-safety risk, whether the clerk received adequate training, and whether Marriott had enough control over day-to-day hotel operations to face liability under an agency theory.
The case resulted in a $16 million jury verdict in October 2024. Public reporting described the action as a hotel sexual assault and premises liability case. Marriott’s 2025 franchise disclosure materials later stated that Marriott and the other defendants filed a notice of appeal. For that reason, the matter should be described as a hotel premises liability trial-verdict case, not a fully final appellate resolution.
Juateria Hall was an overnight guest at the Residence Inn at 3885 Oxford Way in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Public trial reporting states that an intoxicated and disorderly visitor approached the clerk-night auditor and received a key card to Hall’s room. The identification presented to the clerk allegedly did not match the registered guest information, and the visitor was not listed as an authorized person for the room.
Hall alleged that the visitor used the key card to enter her room and sexually assault her. Public reporting also states that Terrell Simmons later pleaded guilty to second-degree forcible rape. The civil lawsuit then examined the hotel’s room-entry controls, front-desk procedures, guest-safety practices, and alleged failures in overnight operations.
The central factual dispute began with the key-card transaction. The case asked whether hotel staff took reasonable steps before issuing access to an occupied guest room and whether the hotel’s procedures were strong enough to prevent unauthorized entry.
Hall filed her civil lawsuit in Forsyth County Superior Court in North Carolina on January 20, 2022. The case was identified as Hall v. Marriott, Case No. 22-CVS-00374. The defendants included Marriott International, Inc., BPR Winston Salem LLC d/b/a Residence Inn, BPR Management, Inc., Terrell Leon Simmons, and William Shannon Rubush.
The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages based on negligence-related claims. Hall’s allegations placed several hotel practices at issue, including identity verification, replacement key-card issuance, front-desk training, overnight staffing, supervision, and guest-room access control.
The lawsuit also raised a separate responsibility question involving Marriott. Because many hotels operate through franchise or management arrangements, the case examined whether Marriott’s role in the property’s day-to-day operations was sufficient to support liability under an agency theory.
Before trial, the parties disputed both the hotel defendants’ liability and Marriott’s responsibility for conduct at the property. Hall argued that the front-desk worker should not have issued a room key to a person whose identification did not match the registered guest and who was not authorized to access the room. She also argued that the clerk had not been properly trained and should not have been working alone during the overnight shift.
The defense disputed foreseeability and causation. Public trial reporting states that the defense acknowledged negligence in giving out the key card, but disputed whether the key card was used to enter the room and whether the assault was a foreseeable result of the clerk’s conduct.
Marriott also disputed responsibility for the incident. Hall argued that Marriott had enough involvement in day-to-day hotel operations to support agency liability. That issue made the case about more than the conduct of one front-desk employee. It also required the jury to consider how control, brand standards, property management, and operational oversight may affect responsibility in hotel premises liability litigation.
The case proceeded to a five-day jury trial in Forsyth County Superior Court before Judge Lora Cubbage. The trial addressed whether the front-desk worker’s conduct was negligent, whether any negligence proximately caused Hall’s injuries, and whether Marriott maintained enough control over hotel operations to face liability under an agency theory.
Hall’s trial presentation focused on the risk created when a room key is issued to an unauthorized person. Her arguments also addressed hotel training, staffing, supervision, and front-desk procedures during the overnight shift.
The defense challenged the connection between the key-card issuance and the assault. It also disputed whether the event was foreseeable in the manner Hall claimed. The trial required the jury to consider how responsibility should be assigned among the hotel brand, property-related entities, management personnel, and the employee involved in the room-key transaction.
This made the trial different from a more typical premises liability case involving a physical defect, such as a wet floor, broken stair, or unsafe walkway. The claims centered on hotel operations and access control rather than a visible maintenance condition.
After the five-day trial, the jury returned a $16 million verdict in favor of Juateria Hall. Public reporting states that the jury deliberated for about 90 minutes before reaching its decision. The verdict form was filed on October 25, 2024.
The verdict form addressed Marriott’s alleged control over day-to-day hotel operations, Shannon Rubush’s negligence in giving Terrell Simmons a room key card, proximate cause, and damages. The jury’s findings resolved the trial issues in Hall’s favor at the jury level.
The verdict addressed claims involving hotel premises liability, unauthorized room access, guest safety, and alleged operational negligence. It also reflected the jury’s findings on agency-related responsibility and the connection between the key-card incident and Hall’s claimed injuries.
Marriott’s 2025 franchise disclosure materials later described the Hall premises liability case as a pending action. The disclosure stated that, in October 2024, a jury returned a $16 million verdict against the franchisee, the manager and front-desk worker, and Marriott International, Inc. on an agency theory, jointly and severally. It also stated that Marriott and the other defendants had filed a notice of appeal and were awaiting trial transcripts.
That appeal posture matters for how the case should be described. Based on currently available public information, Hall v. Marriott should be presented as a hotel premises liability and guest-safety trial-verdict matter rather than a fully final appellate resolution. Post-trial motions, appellate proceedings, settlement activity, or later court rulings may affect the final outcome.
Court:
North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Forsyth County
Case Name:
Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc., et al.
Hotel Security
Hotel Operation
Hotel Franchise
Electronic Key System
Premises Security
Security Negligence
Safety And Security
Franchise Operations
Lodging
Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc., et al. is a North Carolina hotel premises liability case involving room-key access, front-desk verification, overnight staffing, employee training, and alleged operational negligence. The case arose from an April 19, 2020 incident at a Residence Inn in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Hall, an overnight hotel guest, alleged that a hotel clerk gave a key card to her room to an intoxicated visitor whose identification did not match the registered guest information. Hall alleged that the visitor then used the key card to enter her room and sexually assault her.
Hall filed a civil lawsuit in Forsyth County Superior Court against Marriott International, Inc., BPR Winston Salem LLC d/b/a Residence Inn, BPR Management, Inc., Terrell Leon Simmons, and William Shannon Rubush, the front-desk worker involved in the room-key transaction. Her claims focused on whether hotel staff followed reasonable identity-verification procedures, whether overnight staffing created an avoidable guest-safety risk, whether the clerk received adequate training, and whether Marriott had enough control over day-to-day hotel operations to face liability under an agency theory.
The case resulted in a $16 million jury verdict in October 2024. Public reporting described the action as a hotel sexual assault and premises liability case. Marriott’s 2025 franchise disclosure materials later stated that Marriott and the other defendants filed a notice of appeal. For that reason, the matter should be described as a hotel premises liability trial-verdict case, not a fully final appellate resolution.
Juateria Hall was an overnight guest at the Residence Inn at 3885 Oxford Way in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Public trial reporting states that an intoxicated and disorderly visitor approached the clerk-night auditor and received a key card to Hall’s room. The identification presented to the clerk allegedly did not match the registered guest information, and the visitor was not listed as an authorized person for the room.
Hall alleged that the visitor used the key card to enter her room and sexually assault her. Public reporting also states that Terrell Simmons later pleaded guilty to second-degree forcible rape. The civil lawsuit then examined the hotel’s room-entry controls, front-desk procedures, guest-safety practices, and alleged failures in overnight operations.
The central factual dispute began with the key-card transaction. The case asked whether hotel staff took reasonable steps before issuing access to an occupied guest room and whether the hotel’s procedures were strong enough to prevent unauthorized entry.
Hall filed her civil lawsuit in Forsyth County Superior Court in North Carolina on January 20, 2022. The case was identified as Hall v. Marriott, Case No. 22-CVS-00374. The defendants included Marriott International, Inc., BPR Winston Salem LLC d/b/a Residence Inn, BPR Management, Inc., Terrell Leon Simmons, and William Shannon Rubush.
The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages based on negligence-related claims. Hall’s allegations placed several hotel practices at issue, including identity verification, replacement key-card issuance, front-desk training, overnight staffing, supervision, and guest-room access control.
The lawsuit also raised a separate responsibility question involving Marriott. Because many hotels operate through franchise or management arrangements, the case examined whether Marriott’s role in the property’s day-to-day operations was sufficient to support liability under an agency theory.
Before trial, the parties disputed both the hotel defendants’ liability and Marriott’s responsibility for conduct at the property. Hall argued that the front-desk worker should not have issued a room key to a person whose identification did not match the registered guest and who was not authorized to access the room. She also argued that the clerk had not been properly trained and should not have been working alone during the overnight shift.
The defense disputed foreseeability and causation. Public trial reporting states that the defense acknowledged negligence in giving out the key card, but disputed whether the key card was used to enter the room and whether the assault was a foreseeable result of the clerk’s conduct.
Marriott also disputed responsibility for the incident. Hall argued that Marriott had enough involvement in day-to-day hotel operations to support agency liability. That issue made the case about more than the conduct of one front-desk employee. It also required the jury to consider how control, brand standards, property management, and operational oversight may affect responsibility in hotel premises liability litigation.
The case proceeded to a five-day jury trial in Forsyth County Superior Court before Judge Lora Cubbage. The trial addressed whether the front-desk worker’s conduct was negligent, whether any negligence proximately caused Hall’s injuries, and whether Marriott maintained enough control over hotel operations to face liability under an agency theory.
Hall’s trial presentation focused on the risk created when a room key is issued to an unauthorized person. Her arguments also addressed hotel training, staffing, supervision, and front-desk procedures during the overnight shift.
The defense challenged the connection between the key-card issuance and the assault. It also disputed whether the event was foreseeable in the manner Hall claimed. The trial required the jury to consider how responsibility should be assigned among the hotel brand, property-related entities, management personnel, and the employee involved in the room-key transaction.
This made the trial different from a more typical premises liability case involving a physical defect, such as a wet floor, broken stair, or unsafe walkway. The claims centered on hotel operations and access control rather than a visible maintenance condition.
After the five-day trial, the jury returned a $16 million verdict in favor of Juateria Hall. Public reporting states that the jury deliberated for about 90 minutes before reaching its decision. The verdict form was filed on October 25, 2024.
The verdict form addressed Marriott’s alleged control over day-to-day hotel operations, Shannon Rubush’s negligence in giving Terrell Simmons a room key card, proximate cause, and damages. The jury’s findings resolved the trial issues in Hall’s favor at the jury level.
The verdict addressed claims involving hotel premises liability, unauthorized room access, guest safety, and alleged operational negligence. It also reflected the jury’s findings on agency-related responsibility and the connection between the key-card incident and Hall’s claimed injuries.
Marriott’s 2025 franchise disclosure materials later described the Hall premises liability case as a pending action. The disclosure stated that, in October 2024, a jury returned a $16 million verdict against the franchisee, the manager and front-desk worker, and Marriott International, Inc. on an agency theory, jointly and severally. It also stated that Marriott and the other defendants had filed a notice of appeal and were awaiting trial transcripts.
That appeal posture matters for how the case should be described. Based on currently available public information, Hall v. Marriott should be presented as a hotel premises liability and guest-safety trial-verdict matter rather than a fully final appellate resolution. Post-trial motions, appellate proceedings, settlement activity, or later court rulings may affect the final outcome.
Hotel Security Expert Witness
A hotel security expert may evaluate how a hotel manages room access, visitor control, key-card issuance, front-desk verification, and guest-safety procedures. This type of analysis can help explain whether a hotel’s access-control practices are consistent with accepted safety measures for occupied guest rooms.
Hotel Operations Expert Witness
A hotel operations expert may examine staffing practices, employee training, front-desk workflows, overnight shift procedures, supervision, and management documentation. In a case involving a replacement key card, this analysis may help explain how hotel policies should be carried out by staff during real-time guest interactions.
Hotel Franchise and Management Expert Witness
A hotel franchise and management expert may review how responsibilities are divided among a hotel brand, franchisee, property owner, management company, and on-site personnel. This type of review may address brand standards, operating manuals, control over daily procedures, and the practical relationship between corporate policies and property-level decisions.
Premises Liability and Guest-Safety Expert Witness
A premises liability or guest-safety expert may assess whether a hotel used reasonable safety measures to reduce risks to guests. In a room-access case, the analysis may include staffing decisions, access-control practices, visitor procedures, employee oversight, and whether the property had reasonable safeguards for guest protection.
Mental Health and Damages Expert Witness
A trauma, mental health, or damages expert may evaluate the claimed emotional and psychological effects of an incident. This type of expert may address treatment needs, symptoms, functional impact, future care considerations, and how the alleged event affected the plaintiff’s daily life.
The allegations involved hotel operations, guest safety, and premises liability.
The case focused on more than a physical condition at the property. Hall’s allegations involved front-desk decision-making, identity verification, replacement key-card procedures, employee training, overnight staffing, guest safety, and access control.
The verdict does not mean the case is fully final.
The jury returned a $16 million verdict in October 2024, but Marriott’s 2025 disclosure materials state that the defendants filed a notice of appeal. Readers should treat the case as a trial-verdict matter unless later court records confirm a final resolution.
Room-key procedures were part of the liability dispute.
Hotels commonly rely on identity checks and room-access controls to protect guests from unauthorized entry. When a key card is issued to someone who is not authorized for the room, the dispute may focus on whether staff followed reasonable procedures and whether management provided adequate training.
Marriott agency liability was part of the responsibility analysis.
Because many hotel properties operate through franchise or management structures, a legal question may involve whether the hotel brand had enough control over daily operations to face liability. In this case, the jury considered Marriott’s alleged control under an agency theory.
Foreseeability was disputed.
Hall argued that harm was foreseeable after a key card was given to an intoxicated unauthorized person. The defense disputed foreseeability and causation, including whether the key card was the means of room entry and whether the assault was a predictable result of the clerk’s conduct.
Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc. turned on everyday hotel operational decisions. It focused on whether the hotel’s front-desk procedures, employee training, overnight staffing, room-key verification, and guest-room access controls were adequate in connection with an alleged unauthorized entry.
The $16 million verdict addressed how hotels verify identity before issuing room keys and how responsibility may be assigned among a hotel brand, property-related entities, management personnel, and individual employees. The case also shows why hotel premises liability claims can involve operational control, franchise relationships, and agency theories when the alleged harm is tied to daily property procedures.
What is Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc. about?
Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc. is a North Carolina hotel premises liability case involving allegations that an unauthorized visitor received a key card to Hall’s hotel room at a Residence Inn in Winston-Salem. Hall alleged that the visitor used the key card to enter her room and sexually assault her.
What hotel procedures were disputed in the Hall v. Marriott case?
The disputed procedures included front-desk identity verification, replacement key-card issuance, overnight staffing, employee training, and supervision of the clerk-night auditor. Hall argued that a key card should not have been issued to a person who was not registered or authorized for the room.
Why was Marriott International part of the lawsuit?
Marriott was named along with the property-related entity, hotel management entity, front-desk worker, and alleged assailant. A central issue at trial was whether Marriott had enough control over day-to-day hotel operations to face liability under an agency theory.
What did the jury decide in the Juateria Hall hotel premises liability verdict?
In October 2024, a Forsyth County Superior Court jury returned a $16 million verdict in favor of Juateria Hall after a five-day trial. The verdict addressed negligence, proximate cause, damages, and Marriott’s alleged control over hotel operations.
Is Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc. fully resolved?
The case reached a jury verdict, but it should be described as a trial-verdict matter based on currently available public information. Marriott’s 2025 franchise disclosure materials state that Marriott and the other defendants filed a notice of appeal and were awaiting trial transcripts, so later proceedings may affect the final outcome.
Hotel Security Expert Witness
A hotel security expert may evaluate how a hotel manages room access, visitor control, key-card issuance, front-desk verification, and guest-safety procedures. This type of analysis can help explain whether a hotel’s access-control practices are consistent with accepted safety measures for occupied guest rooms.
Hotel Operations Expert Witness
A hotel operations expert may examine staffing practices, employee training, front-desk workflows, overnight shift procedures, supervision, and management documentation. In a case involving a replacement key card, this analysis may help explain how hotel policies should be carried out by staff during real-time guest interactions.
Hotel Franchise and Management Expert Witness
A hotel franchise and management expert may review how responsibilities are divided among a hotel brand, franchisee, property owner, management company, and on-site personnel. This type of review may address brand standards, operating manuals, control over daily procedures, and the practical relationship between corporate policies and property-level decisions.
Premises Liability and Guest-Safety Expert Witness
A premises liability or guest-safety expert may assess whether a hotel used reasonable safety measures to reduce risks to guests. In a room-access case, the analysis may include staffing decisions, access-control practices, visitor procedures, employee oversight, and whether the property had reasonable safeguards for guest protection.
Mental Health and Damages Expert Witness
A trauma, mental health, or damages expert may evaluate the claimed emotional and psychological effects of an incident. This type of expert may address treatment needs, symptoms, functional impact, future care considerations, and how the alleged event affected the plaintiff’s daily life.
The allegations involved hotel operations, guest safety, and premises liability.
The case focused on more than a physical condition at the property. Hall’s allegations involved front-desk decision-making, identity verification, replacement key-card procedures, employee training, overnight staffing, guest safety, and access control.
The verdict does not mean the case is fully final.
The jury returned a $16 million verdict in October 2024, but Marriott’s 2025 disclosure materials state that the defendants filed a notice of appeal. Readers should treat the case as a trial-verdict matter unless later court records confirm a final resolution.
Room-key procedures were part of the liability dispute.
Hotels commonly rely on identity checks and room-access controls to protect guests from unauthorized entry. When a key card is issued to someone who is not authorized for the room, the dispute may focus on whether staff followed reasonable procedures and whether management provided adequate training.
Marriott agency liability was part of the responsibility analysis.
Because many hotel properties operate through franchise or management structures, a legal question may involve whether the hotel brand had enough control over daily operations to face liability. In this case, the jury considered Marriott’s alleged control under an agency theory.
Foreseeability was disputed.
Hall argued that harm was foreseeable after a key card was given to an intoxicated unauthorized person. The defense disputed foreseeability and causation, including whether the key card was the means of room entry and whether the assault was a predictable result of the clerk’s conduct.
Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc. turned on everyday hotel operational decisions. It focused on whether the hotel’s front-desk procedures, employee training, overnight staffing, room-key verification, and guest-room access controls were adequate in connection with an alleged unauthorized entry.
The $16 million verdict addressed how hotels verify identity before issuing room keys and how responsibility may be assigned among a hotel brand, property-related entities, management personnel, and individual employees. The case also shows why hotel premises liability claims can involve operational control, franchise relationships, and agency theories when the alleged harm is tied to daily property procedures.
What is Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc. about?
Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc. is a North Carolina hotel premises liability case involving allegations that an unauthorized visitor received a key card to Hall’s hotel room at a Residence Inn in Winston-Salem. Hall alleged that the visitor used the key card to enter her room and sexually assault her.
What hotel procedures were disputed in the Hall v. Marriott case?
The disputed procedures included front-desk identity verification, replacement key-card issuance, overnight staffing, employee training, and supervision of the clerk-night auditor. Hall argued that a key card should not have been issued to a person who was not registered or authorized for the room.
Why was Marriott International part of the lawsuit?
Marriott was named along with the property-related entity, hotel management entity, front-desk worker, and alleged assailant. A central issue at trial was whether Marriott had enough control over day-to-day hotel operations to face liability under an agency theory.
What did the jury decide in the Juateria Hall hotel premises liability verdict?
In October 2024, a Forsyth County Superior Court jury returned a $16 million verdict in favor of Juateria Hall after a five-day trial. The verdict addressed negligence, proximate cause, damages, and Marriott’s alleged control over hotel operations.
Is Juateria Hall v. Marriott International, Inc. fully resolved?
The case reached a jury verdict, but it should be described as a trial-verdict matter based on currently available public information. Marriott’s 2025 franchise disclosure materials state that Marriott and the other defendants filed a notice of appeal and were awaiting trial transcripts, so later proceedings may affect the final outcome.
Hotel Security
Hotel Operation
Hotel Franchise
Electronic Key System
Premises Security
Security Negligence
Safety And Security
Franchise Operations
Lodging
Human Factors, +4
Hospitality