Twin Cities hotel found not at fault for giving key to woman who broke into room, filmed guests

On a January morning in 2023, a man and woman who spent the night in a Sheraton hotel in Minnetonka were awakened by another woman bursting into their room and filming them naked in bed. The woman hurled curses and accusations, then posted the video to Facebook and Instagram, tagging the naked woman’s family.

It was shared over a thousand times, seen by the woman’s family members and coworkers and turned into a meme.

This week a Hennepin County District Court jury determined the Sheraton hotel was not liable for any invasion of privacy or emotional or physical damages the video caused, even though their employee gave a room key to the woman who filmed and posted the video.

That woman was not a registered guest. She called the hotel three times looking for the man who had booked the hotel room before showing up in the lobby and asking for a key. Lawyers representing Sheraton argued the woman, who was also in a relationship with the man, “tricked” their employee into handing the key over.

The woman whose nude image was shared all over the internet sued the hotel, saying it created the situation that allowed the woman to enter the room, record the video and share it. She was seeking $1.5 million to $2 million, saying she had suffered severe emotional distress and embarrassment. The jury awarded her nothing.

One juror who was approached about deliberations declined to comment.

The Minnesota Star Tribune is not naming the individuals associated with the case because it involves the dissemination of nonconsensual sexual images and the woman who filmed the video was not a party to the lawsuit.

Earlier this year, the woman who distributed the video was criminally convicted for the act. She was also convicted for shooting a gun at the same victim a year after posting the video.

Jury instructions ordered by Hennepin County Judge Edward Wahl, who oversaw the case, were heavily contested by attorney A.L. Brown, who represented the woman who was filmed.

Wahl ordered that when considering damages the jury would hear the “innkeeper’s duty” instruction instead of a general negligence instruction.

General negligence is about proving whether a “reasonable person” would take the same course of action in an event.

The innkeeper’s duty instruction added a specific legal obligation the plaintiff had to prove to be awarded damages: that the hotel “must have known” when it gave the key to the woman in the lobby that morning she was going to film the two people in bed and post it on the internet.

The innkeeper’s duty centers around the reasonable care of operating a business. The jury instruction is based on a 1986 Minnesota Supreme Court opinion in Alholm v. Wilt. That case was brought against the Lakeside Bar in Brainerd after a known belligerent patron who was prone to “slapping fights” broke a bar glass over another man’s face in 1980.

The Supreme Court ruled that when it came to the behavior of a drunken patron at a bar, negligence can be proven only if the injury was “foreseeable” to the bar owner. The Minnesota Jury Instruction Guide notes that innkeeper liability instruction “often arises in cases involving claims against bars” but it is not limited to that.

In a filed objection in the hotel case, Brown called the decision by Wahl to instruct jurors on innkeeper liability and exclude the general negligence instruction “a grave error.” He argued the innkeeper’s duty is about responsibility for third parties, but his client was suing over the direct actions of the hotel employee — not the woman who received the key.

At closing arguments, attorney Anthony Novak, representing Sheraton, hammered on the innkeeper’s duty.

He said there was “zero evidence” the employee had any idea that trouble was brewing when he handed the key over to the woman.

“What didn’t he know? That she had intention to cause trouble that morning, that she planned to surreptitiously record the action,” Novak said, adding that the employee said he never gave the woman a room number. “Based on his subjective assessment of the situation he thought she was someone who should have access to the room. It turned out he was wrong.”

Novak said that error was not the same as being responsible for what another individual did.

“At the end of the day what we have is someone getting tricked, not someone who is in on it.”

Brown told the jury that argument undermined and diminished the responsibility Sheraton had for what happened to his client.

“I say that because none of the events — none of it, listen, none of it — this trial, the deposition, the years of litigation, none of it — would have been possible without Sheraton making a decision to give a key to a stranger,” Brown told the jury, noting that even if the woman was not a stranger to the people inside the hotel room, she was a stranger to Sheraton.

Brown said that one of the many comments posted under the video of his client’s naked body was that “the man at the front desk was the real MVP.”

He said that Sheraton did not dispute that his client had a right to privacy and to feel safe in her room and that it was the hotel’s job to protect that privacy and safety.

“They admit that,” Brown said. “Know what else they admit? They admit they failed on all counts.”

He added that the business model of hotels is built on respecting guests’ privacy — no matter the relationship of the guests who check into the room. He said the employee could have called the room, knocked on the door or even entered the room himself.

“Instead he chose to just give out a key,” Brown said.

The jury was unanimous in deciding that decision was not negligent under the innkeeper’s duty instruction. They determined that the woman who entered the room intruded on the guest’s privacy and that she intentionally inflicted emotional distress — but that it was not Sheraton’s fault.

Line after line the damages awarded were read in the courtroom.

Damages from Sheraton for the mental distress of the plaintiff: $0. For her humiliation: $0. For her embarrassment: $0.

Novak did not return a request for comment. Brown said he plans to appeal.