Week 3 : Negligence, Product Liability, Warranties, and Really Hot Coffee - Homework ES
The problem is found on page 314 of your textbook. Here is it, recapped:
2. Douglas Margreiter was severely injured in New Orleans on the night of April 6, 1976. He was
the chief of the pharmacy section of the Colorado Department of Social Services and was in New
Orleans to attend the annual meeting of the American Pharmaceutical Association. On Tuesday
evening, April 6, Mr. Margreiter had dinner at the Royal Sonesta Hotel with two associates from
Colorado who were attending the meeting and were staying in rooms adjacent to Mr. Margreiter's
in the New Hotel ...view middle of the document...
2d 508
(5th Gr. 1981)]
1. What are the elements of negligence that Mr. Margreiter will need to prove against the hotel in
order to win his case? List the five elements here. (Points : 5)
The elements of negligence that Mr. M will need to prove against the hotel are: Duty, Breach of
duty, Causation, Proximate cause and Damages
2. Applying the facts you have from the case problem above only, lay out a case for negligence
against the hotel. Use the elements to outline the case. Start with the first element, explain what
facts you have for or against that element, and then continue through the five elements of
negligence. If you do not have enough facts to make your case, explain what facts you would need
to have in order to support a case of negligence. (Points : 10)
Based on the element of duty, it is apparent that the hotel was negligence in their duties to ensure
the safety of its clients. The hotel staff had the duty to ensure Mr. Margreiter safety inside his
room by limiting who had access to his room. Based ib the breach of duty, it can be said that the
hotel management failed to have adequate security. The hotel failed ensure Mr. M safety by not
monitor who had access to the elevators and guests rooms. So they omitted their duty. Based on
the negligence of cause in fact, the case lacks enough evidence to show that the hotel was actually
the one involved in the beating of Mr. M because there is no mention of anything concerning the
hotel during the incidence. But in a court of law it could be argued that if the hotel had adequate
security majors in place then Mr. Margreiter wouldn't have been injured. Based on proximate
cause, the security personnel must have heard the commotion but they didn't report it. This shows
that there must have been a proximate cause. Lastly, Mr. M can sue the hotel because he was
inflicted physical harm. Mr. M. had a craniotomy,other medical treatments and suffered
permanant effects from the incident.
3. What defense(s) does the hotel have on its side? List (and define) those here. Very briefly state
why you think the hotel could use this defense. (Points : 10)
The hotel says Mr. M was intoxicated and met his fate outside the hotel. So this could be the base
for its defense on the fact that there was no evidence that shows that the hotel was responsible in
any way and that Mr. M was irresponsibile due to being drunk.
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...
