Blalock v. SRKBS Hotel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2026
• Docket: 24-3051
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 15, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MAELLA BLALOCK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 24-3051 (D.C. No. 2:21-CV-02552-DDC) SRKBS HOTEL, LLC; NINAD (D. Kan.) SHARMA; PARESH BHAKTA; SURENDRAKUMAR BHAKTA; GEETA V. REDDY; RSD, LLC; SEVJAYMAN, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before McHUGH, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Maella Blalock was asleep in her Wichita hotel room when she was

hit and injured by a stray bullet that came through the wall of her room.

She subsequently filed a negligence suit against the hotel’s owner and

operator, SRKBS Hotel, LLC, in addition to its members (collectively,

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 2

SRKBS). 1 Blalock claimed that SRKBS violated its duty to protect her even

though a third party, and not anyone affiliated with SRKBS, had fired the

bullet. While Kansas law sometimes imposes a duty on business owners to

protect their patrons against the criminal acts of third parties, that duty

arises only in limited circumstances. The district court granted summary

judgment for SRKBS after concluding that Blalock had not presented

enough evidence of such circumstances to warrant a trial. We agree, so we

exercise our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to affirm.

I

On the night of June 19, 2020, Blalock was staying as a registered

guest at a Super 8 Motel owned and operated by SRKBS. That night, Gregg

Townsend was working as the night auditor at the Super 8.

At approximately 11:30 p.m., Townsend rented a room on the third

floor to two women. Unfortunately, those women proved to be poor guests.

Shortly after renting them a room, Townsend received a noise complaint.

When he went up to the women’s room to investigate, he discovered roughly

thirty people packed into the room, partying. He demanded that everyone

1 SRKBS consists of the following members: Ninad Sharma; Paresh

Bhakta; Surendrakumar Bhakta; Geeta V. Reddy; RSD, LLC; and Sevjayman, LLC.

2 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 3

except the two women leave. The partygoers complied and exited the

building, but they ended up congregating in the parking lot.

A few minutes later, at approximately 2:35 a.m., an altercation broke

out between the partygoers who remained in the parking lot, culminating

in gunfire. Stray bullets went through the wall of Blalock’s room on the first

floor, and one struck her, causing injuries to her feet. At roughly 3:00 a.m.,

the shooting was reported to the Wichita Police Department, which

responded promptly to the scene.

Blalock filed suit against SRKBS in the District of Kansas. In her

operative complaint, she alleged that SRKBS was negligent for (1) failure

to take appropriate security measures, (2) failure to enact or enforce

policies, and (3) failure to train. In addition to requesting future medical

expenses, noneconomic losses, and future noneconomic losses, Blalock

requested 10 million dollars in punitive damages and sought to pierce the

corporate veil to hold SRKBS’s members liable.

Eventually, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The district court denied Blalock’s motion while granting SRKBS’s motion,

concluding that SRKBS owed no duty to Blalock because the shooting and

resulting harm were unforeseeable. After the district court entered

judgment against her, Blalock timely appealed.

3 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 4

II

We review a district court’s summary judgment decision de novo.

Beardsley v. Farmland Co-Op, Inc., 530 F.3d 1309, 1313 (10th Cir. 2008).

“Summary judgment is appropriate if the record evidence shows there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law.” Praseuth v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 406 F.3d

1245, 1255 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). Because the parties

filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and Blalock did not prevail

before the district court, we view the inferences to be drawn from the

evidence in the light most favorable to her. Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d

420, 425 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654,

655 (1962)).

III

A

This is a diversity case governed by Kansas law. See Pepsi-Cola

Bottling Co. of Pittsburg, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 431 F.3d 1241, 1255 (10th

Cir. 2005) (citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 495–97

(1941)). Our “task is not to reach [our] own judgment regarding the

substance of [Kansas] law, but simply to ascertain and apply [Kansas] law.”

Wade v. EMCASCO Ins. Co., 483 F.3d 657, 665 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal

quotations and citation omitted). In doing so, we “must follow the most

4 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 5

recent decisions of the state’s highest court” and, “[w]here no controlling

state decision exists, [we] must attempt to predict what the state’s highest

court would do.” Id. at 665–66 (internal quotations and citation omitted). In

conducting the latter analysis, we usually “follow the opinions of an

intermediate state appellate court unless ‘convinced by other persuasive

data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise.’” Evanston

Ins. Co. v. L. Off. of Michael P. Medved, P.C., 890 F.3d 1195, 1200 (10th Cir.

2018) (quoting Dullmaier v. Xanterra Parks & Resorts, 883 F.3d 1278, 1283–

84 (10th Cir. 2018)).

B

In negligence cases, Kansas law requires a plaintiff to prove that the

defendant owed the plaintiff a legally recognized duty, the defendant

breached this duty, the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries,

and the plaintiff suffered damages. Unruh v. City of Wichita, 540 P.3d 1002,

1004 (Kan. 2024). We limit our analysis to whether SRKBS owed Blalock a

duty, as that is how the district court disposed of the case and how the

parties have framed this appeal.

In Seibert v. Vic Regnier Builders, Inc., 856 P.2d 1332 (Kan. 1993),

the Kansas Supreme Court set forth the analytical framework for

evaluating the existence of duty in the circumstances present here. It

explained that generally “[t]he owner of a business is not the insurer of the

5 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 6

safety of its patrons or customers.” Id. at 1338. “The owner ordinarily has

no liability for injuries inflicted upon patrons or customers by the criminal

acts of third parties in the business’ parking lot, as the owner has no duty

to provide security.” Id. A duty arises only when “circumstances exist from

which the owner could reasonably foresee that its customers have a risk of

peril above and beyond the ordinary and that appropriate security measures

should be taken.” Id.

When we assess foreseeability, Kansas law directs us to consider the

totality of the circumstances. Id. at 1339. “[P]erhaps the most significant

factor” in this analysis is the existence of “prior similar incidents.” Id. But

we must also examine other circumstances, such as whether the hotel was

“located in a known high crime area” and whether security was in place,

including the “economic feasibility” and “reasonable[ness]” of the relevant

security measures. 2 Id. at 1339–40. That said, these circumstances do not

contribute to foreseeability unless they “have a direct relationship to the

harm incurred.” Id. at 1339. And no duty attaches unless “the frequency

and severity of criminal conduct substantially exceed the norm” or where

2 We observe that, while Kansas courts consider the level of security

in place when analyzing foreseeability and the existence of a duty, such facts are also relevant to the question of whether a defendant breached its duty to provide security. See Shirley v. Glass, 308 P.3d 1, 9 (Kan. 2013) (“The duty of care is intertwined with the foreseeability of harm.”).

6 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 7

the risk of injury is so “foreseeably high that a duty should be placed upon

the owner of the premises to provide security.” Id.

Courts must tread carefully when analyzing negligence claims at

summary judgment. That is because “[w]hether an actor’s conduct

constitutes negligence is generally a factual question left to a jury.” Roberts

v. Printup, 422 F.3d 1211, 1218 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gust v. Jones, 162

F.3d 587, 593 (10th Cir. 1998)); see also Hammond v. San Lo Leyte VFW

Post # 7515, 466 P.3d 886, 890 (Kan. 2020) (summary judgment “should be

granted with caution in negligence cases”); Esquivel v. Watters, 183 P.3d

847, 850 (Kan. 2008) (“[S]ummary judgment is seldom proper in negligence

cases.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). And specific to the

issues here, “[w]hether risk of harm is reasonably foreseeable is a question

to be determined by the trier of fact.” Nero v. Kan. State Univ., 861 P.2d

768, 779 (Kan. 1993) (quoting Kan. State Bank & Tr. Co. v. Specialized

Transp. Servs., Inc., 819 P.2d 587, 598 (Kan. 1991)).

Still, Kansas courts can and frequently do decide foreseeability at

summary judgment. E.g., Gragg v. Wichita State Univ., 934 P.2d 121 (Kan.

1997); Est. of Keubler ex rel. Coleman v. Kan. Vill. at Old Town, LLC, ---

P.3d ----, 2026 WL 912266 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2026); Gardin v. Emporia

Hotels, Inc., 61 P.3d 732 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003); Weroha v. Craft, 951 P.2d

1308 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998); Est. of Bell ex rel. Bell v. 617 W. LLC, 2022 WL

7 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 8

17881331 (Kan. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2022) (unpublished). 3 So long as

“reasonable persons could arrive at but one conclusion” even after

considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,

it is appropriate to grant summary judgment on foreseeability. Nero, 861

P.2d at 779.

C

Broadly speaking, Blalock made three arguments during summary

judgment proceedings before the district court: (1) SRKBS was on notice of

prior similar incidents; (2) the Super 8 Motel was in a high crime area; and

(3) SRKBS did not have reasonable security measures in place. The district

court rejected all three. First, the district court held that the prior incidents

identified by Blalock were not violent and therefore not similar enough to

make the shooting that injured Blalock foreseeable. Second, it determined

that the crime maps Blalock used to prove the existence of a high crime area

were too generic. And finally, it found that SRKBS had implemented at

least some security measures, even if they could have been more

3 Unpublished opinions from the Kansas Court of Appeals are not binding precedent under the Kansas Supreme Court’s rules. Kan. S. Ct. R. 7.04(g)(2)(B). We therefore cite them only for their persuasive value and accord them less weight than published opinions, which are also not technically binding on us, but which we will usually follow absent strong evidence to the contrary. Evanston Ins., 890 F.3d at 1200.

8 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 9

comprehensive. So, the district court granted summary judgment to SRKBS

and denied Blalock’s cross-motion. Although we do not agree that the prior

incidents identified by Blalock were non-violent, we ultimately arrive at the

same outcome as the district court.

We start with prior similar incidents because they are the most

important part of the analysis. See Seibert, 856 P.2d at 1339. The key idea

here is similarity. If the prior incidents that Blalock identifies are not

sufficiently similar to the incident that injured her, they would lack the

“direct relationship” to her injury necessary to support foreseeability. Id.;

see also Est. of Keubler, 2026 WL 912266, at *11. While prior incidents need

not be identical to the incident at issue, Kansas courts have rigorously

enforced the similarity requirement.

For example, in Estate of Bell, the Kansas Court of Appeals considered

foreseeability in the context of Debrylan Bell’s murder in an apartment

parking lot. 2022 WL 17881331, at *1. To show that the murder was

foreseeable, Bell’s estate proffered “a long list of incidents” that had

occurred in or around the apartment complex, including “violent crimes[]

such as gun crimes and rape.” Id. at *5. The Court of Appeals rejected that

argument and affirmed summary judgment against the estate, even though

both the murder and the prior incidents were violent. It reasoned that the

9 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 10

murder was a targeted crime against the victim, so no amount of

generalized prior violence could have allowed the apartment complex

owners to foresee Bell’s killing. Id.

Of course, targeted attacks are uniquely difficult to anticipate. But

the Kansas Court of Appeals has likewise required high levels of similarity

outside the context of a targeted crime. Its recent decision in Estate of

Keubler illustrates this point. In that case, Robin Keubler was struck and

killed when a driver tried to run over a resident of Keubler’s apartment

building in connection with a domestic dispute. 2026 WL 912266, at *1.

Keubler’s estate sued the owners of her apartment building for negligence

because the hit and run crime happened behind the apartment building. Id.

at *2. In support of foreseeability, the estate produced a long list of violent

crimes that had occurred nearby, including “the murder of two male

residents,” “a shooting involving three victims,” “two physical attacks of

female victims,” and “a kidnapping of four people.” Id. at *11. Faced with

the list of other violent crimes, the Court of Appeals held that none of those

prior incidents supported foreseeability because none “put [the defendant]

on notice that a tenant involved in a domestic dispute would try to hit

another with a vehicle, then solicit a friend to do the same, as here.” Id. So

again, the Court affirmed summary judgment against the estate. Id. at *13.

10 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 11

Kansas courts have held that prior similar incidents contribute to

foreseeability only when they are of the same type as the incident at issue.

For that reason, the Kansas Supreme Court found that there was a genuine

dispute about foreseeability in Nero v. Kansas State University, 861 P.2d

768. In that case, a female student sued the university after a male

classmate sexually assaulted her. Id. at 771. The Kansas Supreme Court

held that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the sexual assault was

foreseeable because the university was aware of a previous rape allegation

against that same male classmate. Id. at 780. The prior incident and the

incident at issue both involved sexual violence, and the allegations were

made against the same individual.

The facts in Blalock’s case are closer to Bell and Keubler than to Nero.

Blalock has identified numerous reports of criminal activity taking place at

or near the Super 8 Motel where she was injured, such as larceny, burglary,

assault, battery, and rape. While many of those prior incidents were violent,

none involved a parking lot shooting, and Blalock was injured by a shooting.

Those reports are therefore not prior similar incidents that demonstrate

foreseeability.

Resisting this conclusion, Blalock urges us to adopt the more

expansive view of prior similar incidents that we applied in Storts v.

Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc., Nos. 98-3285, 98-3220, 2000 WL 358381 (10th

11 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 12

Cir. Apr. 6, 2000). But Storts is an unpublished decision with no binding

effect. Moreover, this court decided Storts a quarter century ago. Since then,

Kansas law has passed Storts by – the clear and current trend among

Kansas courts is to take a narrow view of similarity. See Est. of Keubler,

2026 WL 912266; Est. of Bell, 2022 WL 17881331. Indeed, the trend is to

find that harm from the criminal acts of third parties is not foreseeable. See

also Gardin, 61 P.3d at 739; Weroha, 951 P.2d at 1314.

Since our job is to “predict what the state’s highest court would do,”

Wade, 483 F.3d at 666 (quotation omitted), and we draw on intermediate

state appellate court decisions to do so, Evanston Ins., 890 F.3d at 1200, we

follow recent Kansas Court of Appeals decisions like Keubler and Bell over

Storts. We conclude that the prior incidents put forth by Blalock are not

similar enough to what occurred here to demonstrate foreseeability or to

show that SRKBS owed her a cognizable duty under Kansas negligence law.

Next, we consider the evidence that the Super 8 Motel was located in

a “high crime area.” Seibert, 856 P.2d at 1339. According to Blalock, she can

prove the Super 8 was in a high crime area by using crime density maps.

The district court rejected that argument because the maps showed only the

frequency of crime, not its severity. We again agree with the district court.

12 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 13

Tellingly, Keubler – which was published after oral argument in this

appeal – expressly cited the district court’s analysis of crime density maps

and agreed that the district court had correctly applied Kansas law. 2026

WL 912266, at *10 (discussing Blalock v. SRKBS Hotel, LLC, 726 F. Supp.

3d 1266 (D. Kan. 2024)). This is strong evidence that the district court got

it right.

In any event, the district court’s reasoning aligns directly with our

discussion of similarity above. Even if there were many crimes reported at

or near the Super 8 Motel, those crimes do not support foreseeability unless

they are similar in severity to the shooting that injured Blalock. They are

not. Accordingly, Blalock’s crime density maps do not establish

foreseeability or merit a reversal.

Lastly, we consider Blalock’s argument that SRKBS should be held

liable for negligence because it failed to take adequate security measures to

prevent her injuries. On this point, we understand Blalock to be arguing

that crime was more likely, and therefore foreseeable, if the security

measures employed by SRKBS were inadequate. The district court

concluded that SRKBS could have reasonably provided more security. But

the district court held that, under Kansas law, SRKBS did not have a duty

to do so. Once again, we agree.

13 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 14

Recall that Kansas business owners are typically not liable “for

injuries inflicted upon patrons or customers by the criminal acts of third

parties.” Seibert, 856 P.2d at 1338. That is because the duty to provide

security is the exception, not the rule, in Kansas negligence law. Id. Absent

a duty, the fact that a business can provide additional security measures

does not mean that the business must take those measures or be held liable,

even if those measures are reasonable and economical. Were we to hold

otherwise, we would be transforming the exception into the rule by

requiring businesses to always take every reasonable security measure.

The Kansas Court of Appeals’ decision in Weroha v. Craft illuminates

this principle. 951 P.2d 1308. In Weroha, the plaintiff sued an arcade for

failing to protect him from a third-party assault on the arcade’s property.

Id. at 1309. He did not have evidence showing that there were prior similar

incidents or that the arcade was located in a high crime area. Id. at 1313.

Instead, the Weroha plaintiff argued that the security measures in place

were insufficient: the arcade did not employ security guards the night of the

assault, it had just one employee on duty, and it had not installed cameras

or security mirrors. Id. at 1309, 1313. The Court of Appeals rejected this

argument on summary judgment, concluding that the arcade “did not have

a general duty to provide additional security” given the lack of evidence

showing prior similar incidents or presence of a high crime area. Id. at 1314.

14 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 15

Put differently, lack of security standing alone – without evidence of prior

criminal activity or presence of a high crime area – was insufficient as a

matter of law to establish foreseeability.

The security deficiencies here are much like those at the Weroha

arcade. Blalock produced evidence showing that SRKBS employed only one

night auditor even though it was impossible for a single auditor to perform

his required guest services duties while also maintaining adequate security

at the hotel premises. SRKBS declined its employees’ requests to hire

security guards, too. Going beyond the security flaws in Weroha, the record

here also shows that SRKBS failed to secure one of the Super 8’s exterior

doors, which could have been used by several of the partygoers. And while

SRKBS maintains a do-not-rent list that includes individuals suspected of

illegal activity, there is evidence indicating that enforcement of the list is

spotty.

Still, as SRKBS argues, it had some security measures in place even

if they were imperfect. Although it did not catch everyone on its do-not-rent

list, SRKBS at least tried to implement a do-not-rent policy to protect its

guests. And unlike the Weroha arcade, SRKBS installed both interior and

exterior security cameras around its property. Finally, SRKBS provided

enough lighting in the hotel parking lot for its employees to observe

anything that happened there, discouraging illegal activity.

15 Appellate Case: 24-3051 Document: 68-1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Page: 16

Taking all this evidence in the light most favorable to Blalock, we

conclude that SRKBS made some effort to provide security, though it

certainly could have done more. But under Weroha, the fact that SRKBS

could have done more is insufficient as a matter of law to establish

foreseeability. See 951 P.2d at 1313–14. What is more, the security

measures that SRKBS had in place were more extensive than those at the

Weroha arcade, making Blalock’s case even weaker.

Since we dismissed Blalock’s arguments about prior incidents and

high crime areas above, she can only point to security deficiencies. This is

not enough to create any genuine dispute of material fact about

foreseeability. As such, we follow Weroha and conclude that SRKBS was

entitled to summary judgment in its favor.

AFFIRMED. 4

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge

4 On appeal, Blalock presents only one theory of duty not based on

foreseeability. Op. Br. at 60–61. She does not adequately develop that theory, so it is waived. Petrella v. Brownback, 787 F.3d 1242, 1260 (10th Cir. 2015).