Stites v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
Appellant Brandt Stites claims that his rights were violated when he was denied a hotel room because he was accompanied by a disabled person with a service dog. The trial court granted respondents motion for summary judgment. We affirm. Appellant did not produce any evidence showing that respondents own, operate, or control the hotel where he was denied accommodations. Rather, the hotel in question is owned and operated by a franchisee. Respondents cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of a third party franchisee, where appellant failed to show (1) an actual or ostensible agency relationship between respondents and the franchisee, or (2) that respondents hired, trained or supervised the desk clerk who denied appellant accommodations. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants request for a continuance.
Comments on Stites v. Hilton Hotels Corp.