While I admit it would be difficult to prove damages great enough to warrant the pursuing of any action against this hotel, after brief research I found that the Washington Supreme Court ruled that there is no duty to prevent a third party from intentionally harming another unless "a special relationship exists between the defendant and either the third party or the foreseeable victim of the third party's conduct." Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Ave. Assocs and, further, in Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 24, it says ". . . by entering into certain relations with others, a person may become responsible for harm caused to them by conduct of his agents or servants not within the scope of employment; the extent of this liability depends upon the duty assumed."
The potential liability of the hotel arises when the special relationship that exists between it and the employee imposes upon the hotel a duty to oversee and control this employee's conduct, and a special relationship exists between the hotel and the guest which gives the guest the right to protection by the hotel. A negligence claim, then, could be based on the special type of relationship that exists between the hotel, the employee of the hotel, and the guest.
Because icunurse could not prevent the hotel employee from entering her room, even when the room was secured with locks, the hotel has the responsibility to allow only honest employees to have access to the keys and to enter the rooms. It is, in other words, the hotel's duty to protect guests, not only from outsiders (by way of secure locks on doors and windows), but also from dishonest employees - especially since hotel guests are more vulnerable to harm by staff (who have free access to the rooms) than they are by outsiders (who must break in).
The hotel can be held liable for its employees' actions while under the scope of employment and, while the scope of employment may limit an employer's vicarious liability should the employee be acting outside this employment by pursuing personal objectives, it does not limit the employer's liability for breach of its duty of care to its guests, by carefully screening and/or supervising its employees.
The duty of the hotel is to provide honest and competent employees, and to see that reasonable precautions are taken to protect guests and their property, and to have suitable locks on the rooms to make the rooms secure. Because icunurse, and other guests, cannot prevent employees with keys from entering their rooms, the duty of the hotel further is to prevent that which is entrusted to employees (keys to the rooms, for instance) from being placed in the hands of those who could "endanger" the guests. This duty, then, could give rise to causes of action for negligent hiring, retention, and/or supervision of employees.
Washington cases have generally held that an employer is not liable for negligent supervision of an employee unless the employer knew, or should have known, that the employee posed a risk to others, and Washington cases have generally required a showing that the employer had knowledge of the "dangerous tendencies" of an employee. Both Xylene and YAG pointed out instances where the employer could be held liable.
What icunurse did, in filing a police report and a report with the hotel, is probably the extent of what can be done without an investigation into the hotel's hiring practices - to see whether they are properly screening and supervising employees and to see whether they have knowingly hired employees that should not have access to guest room keys. And, even if an investigation were to show negligence on the part of the hotel, I agree with everyone that the "injury" incurred by icunurse does not, probably, warrant the expense of bringing suit - as the cost of the suit would probably be more than the amount of any damages awarded.
