Business Ethics and Hotel Injury
Here are links to TWO cases. The first case, the Margreiter v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. case, is the decision to the case in your homework problem. Within that case, you will find mentioned the second case: Nordmann v. National Hotel Company, 425 F.2d. 1103 (5th Cir. 1970). That case establishes the basis by which the court in Margreiter determined the level of duty the New Hotel Monteleone owed to Mr. Margreiter. It may help you with the remainder of this homework.
Read both cases. Then, answer the questions below.
Here are the cases: Margreiter case Nordmann case (I have attached the links below).
1. During an appeal, the appeals court ...view middle of the document...
The losing party emphasized the opinion of the police man that Margreiter was drunk, it pointed out the inconsistencies in the statement of Margreiter and the lack of memory of Margreiter. The losing party pointed out that Margreiter must have gone out of the Hotel on his own become intoxicated and fallen into wrong company. The losing part further claimed that the injuries suffered by Margreiter were not so great and that he had recovered.
The court relied on the fact that the loser's contention had already been rejected by the jury. The fact that the plaintiff had no history nor intention of straying out at midnight because he had plans with his associates. His associates corroborated his plans in court. The appeals court decided to uphold the verdict of the jurors. In other words the appeals court refused to decide the case on the argument of the plaintiff. In addition, the court relied on the fact that Margreiter had permanent brain damage, continuing headaches, traumatic neurosis, and epilepsy. So, apart from the verdict of the jury, the Appeals court also based its verdict on the medical report of Margreiter.
2. Now review the Nordmann case. The Margreiter court used this case to assist it with making its decision (see line two of paragraph #4 of the Margreiter opinion.) What did the Nordmann court say was the "duty of care" a hotel owes to a guest to protect him from injury by third persons? Provide that here. Then, review the facts that the Nordmann court relied on to determine there had been a breach of the duty by the Nordmann court. Briefly recite those here as well. (Points: 10)
In Nordmann v. National Hotel Company, 425 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1970), the Nordmann court said that the law imposes upon innkeepers at least ordinary or reasonable care to protect their guests against injury by third persons and some case call for the exercise of a higher degree of care. The court held the defendants to a standard of ordinary or reasonable care to protect the hotel's guest from injury by third person.
the facts that the court relied on in the Nordmann case to establish that there was a breach of duty are as follows. The verdict of the jury, the testimony of the occupant of the adjoining room David DuCharme who heard the robbery and assault taking place and who called the hotel operator and the room clerk asking for police but the police was not called immediately. The police were called in only 40 minutes after the assault because the room clerk claimed that he was very busy at that time. One examination of the facts, the court reached the conclusion that the defendants had failed to perform their general duty to protect their guest. The breach of duty was committed because criminals, sex deviates, and vagrants were allowed to wander indiscriminately about the hotel, there was failure to maintain competent staff of employee, failure to maintain adequate security personnel, failure to summon the police immediately and failure to...