Brown, BA 770

Margreiter v. New Hotel

BA 770 Legal & Regulatory Environment of Business

Case Brief

Margreiter v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. C.A.La., 1981

Instructor David Bastianelli

Lakeland College
January 21, 2015

Brown, BA 770
Margreiter v. New Hotel
Title: Margreiter v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc.

I.

Citation
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 640 F.2d 508

II.

Facts of the Case

A. Material: Douglas T. Margreiter, the chief of the pharmacy section of the Colorado
Department of Social Services, was severely injured in New Orleans during the night of
April 6, 1976 when he was attending an annual meeting of the American Pharmaceutical
Association. Margreiter was attending this meeting with mutual friends Peebles and
Bogan. Margreiter and Peebles happened to have adjoining rooms and Bogan was
supposed to stop by later that evening to discuss the upcoming meeting. Margreiter was
found in a parking lot that was three blocks over from the Monteleone. The police
recollected Douglas as being highly intoxicated, but took him to Charity Hospital where
he was treated similar to a drunk. There was no dispute that Margreiter had been severely
beaten and underwent great suffering due to the fact that he was showing massive
contusions and lacerations about his face, bleeding at the mouth, and passing blood
rectally.
B. Legal: Margreiter sued the Monteleone Hotel, saying that he was taken from his hotel
room by two men whom had a key to that room, the use of an elevator, and unrestricted
access and exit into an alley; all permitted by the hotels lack of care to protect its guests.
The hotel contended that Margreiter was on an inebriated venture and met his fate outside
of the hotel. The jury found in favor of Mr. Margreiter. Judgment was reduced from

III.

$750,000 to $400,000 by remittitur.

Issues

Brown, BA 770
Margreiter v. New Hotel

Did the Monteleone Hotel take the necessary steps in order to prevent certain crimes in
light of the relevant facts and circumstances that surrounded that particular incident

(recent burglary)?
Should the hotel be held liable for the injuries that were sustained by the plaintiff off of

property grounds?
Did the Monteleone Hotel fail to install the proper locks on the windows and doors,
provide adequate lighting in the parking areas, or take the adequate measures to ensure

IV.

that the passkeys are not used by criminals?

Are the actions of the hospital a contributing factor to the injuries to Mr. Margreiters,
and if so, should some of the liability be passed onto them?
Is the hotel vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees?
Decisions (Holdings)

The Court of Appeals, Reavley, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) the evidence supported finding that
the Monteleone Hotel was negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care to protect the plaintiff
against injury by a third party and that such was the proximate cause of his injuries, and (2) the
injuries sustained support an award of $400,000.
V.

Reasoning (Rationale)
The foundation for the hotels liability is the care that it owed to a guest in order to
protect him against injury by their persons. The finding of the jury stated that the hotel
was negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care in order to protect the plaintiff against

injury by a third party, and that it was a proximate cause of injury.

The Monteleone Hotel did not one defend its security devices or the care that it exercised

to protect Margreiter.
There was no evidence that a midnight frolic was the practice or disposition of the
plaintiff. Margreiters two acquaintances testified and supported his activities and plans
of the evening.

Brown, BA 770
Margreiter v. New Hotel

The judge was unable to say that reasonable jurors could not arrive at the particular
verdict; consequently, the judge must uphold the decision and the action of the trial court
in refusing motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. See

Boeing Company v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969).

The Monteleone Hotel concluded that there is no sound basis in the evidence for the
damage award of $400,000. The evidence supported the award to Margreiter. That
evidence being: Margreiter was severely beaten and left unconscious on the street, was
taken to the hospital and treated like a drunk and was tied by the hands and feet on the
hospital cart, showed massive contusions and lacerations on the face, bleeding from the
mouth, and passed blood rectally, and underweny surgery to remove a clot on the brain
that ended up causing permanent damage in the nature of continuing headaches,
traumatic neurosis, and epilepsy, his teeth were broken, there were required bone grafts to
correct a broken angle bone, his ear drum was perforated, and had hearing loss and
ringing in the ear, and subsequently, his hair suddenly turn white, even though he was
only 55.

VI.

In Louisiana, you must prove that the person whom caused your injury was negligent.
That is, he didnt use reasonable care. In Louisiana, you must prove:
o That the person who caused your injury owed you a duty
o That the other person broke or breached that duty
o That you suffered damages
o That the other persons failure cause your injury
Separate Opinions

Edmund L. Palmieri, J., District Judge:

In sum, the recovery here was shockingly exaggerated and beyond any reasonable consonance
with the plaintiffs case considered as a whole. The evidence was clearly insufficient to establish

Brown, BA 770
Margreiter v. New Hotel
the plaintiffs permanent and total disability. It is indeed surprising to find in plaintiffs papers on
this motion a suggestion that the jury could have justifiably reached such a conclusion. The
impact of the plaintiffs own evidence was that he could and should return to work and was quite
capable of doing so. A finding of total and permanent disability would be inconsistent with such
evidence. It is this courts considered opinion that the maximum award which the evidence with
support is the sum of $400,000. See Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 429 F.2d
1033, 1047 (5th Cir. 1970), adopting Glazer V. Glazer, 278 F.Supp. 476, 478-82 (E.D.La.1968).
COLEMAN, Chief Judge, and CHARLES CLARK and REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: We do not
regard the amount of the judgment as excessive. Mr. Margreiter makes no complaint of the trail
judges action in requiring remittitur of $350,000 from the jurys award of $750,000. See Miles v.
Vicksburg Chemical Company, 588 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1979); Bonura v. Sea Land Service, Inc.,
505 F.2d 665 (5th Cir. 1974).
VII.

Analysis
Following the Margreiter v. New Hotel case, effective, January 1, 1982, New York
legislature added the following to section 204 of the New York General Business Law
(governing hotel registration records): 204-a. Safety chain latches required. Every
person, firm or corporation engaged in the business of furnishing public lodging
accommodations in hotels, motels or motor courts shall install and maintain, on the inside
of each entrance door to every rental unit for which there is a duplicate or master key
which would afford entry to said unit by one another than the occupant, a safety chain
latch. This case had a massive impact on the laws that owners had to abide by to keep

their guests or tenants safe.

The case is used numerous times to address the negligence of a hotel. The case does not
just apply in the state of Louisiana. It also applies in Utah, in the case of Barbara F.

Brown, BA 770
Margreiter v. New Hotel
Mitchell v. Pearson Enterprises or in Indiana, in the case of Trask-Morton v. Motel 6
Operating LP. Mr. Margreiters case was not used to try and win these two specific cases,

but instead to merely create a base for the negligence of a hotel.

During an appeal, the appeals court is required to rely on the evidence that was submitted
during the trial. The record, which is made by both parties during the trial, that includes
all objections and other submissions of evidence, in binding on the appeals court, unless
it was erroneous or not reasonable to believe or accept that evidence. Furthermore,
decisions of fact and credibility are typically left to the jury to make, and appeals courts
prefer not to reexamine those decisions because the jury can weigh the body language of
the witnesses during trial, and the record on appeal cant show that, appeal courts prefer
allowing juries to make fact-finding decisions. Judges on appeal try to look for legal
theories to overturn cases (or uphold them.). They make the law based verdicts, based
on the record before them.

References

Hotel Liability. Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. Ed. Shirelle Phelps. Gale Cengage, 2003.
eNotes.com. 21 Jan, 2015 http://www.enotes.com/travel-reference/.
How to Brief a Case. (1999) Lloyd Stealy Library: ohn Jay College of Criminal Justice.
http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief/html
Lawyers.com (2011). Personal Injury in Louisiana (LA). Retrieved January 22, 2015 from
http://research.lawyers.com/Louisiana/Personal-Injury-in-Louisiana.html.

Brown, BA 770
Margreiter v. New Hotel
Makdisi, M. & Makdisi, J. (2009). How to write a case brief for law school. Retrieved 01 22,
2015, from LexisNexis: http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/how-tobrief-a-case.page
Margreiter v. New Hotel Monteleone, 509 F. Supp. 264 - Dist. Court, ED Louisiana 1979
Margreiter v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., 640 F. 2d 508 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1981
Sherry, John E. H. The laws of innkeepers: for hotels, motels, restaurants, and clubs. Cornell
University Press, 1993. 409.