Margreiter- Five Elements of Negligence

Margreiter-

Five Elements of Negligence that Mr. Margreiter will need to prove against the hotel: 1 ) Duty of care -- hotel failed to provide adequate security for size, location, and known issues; 2) Breach of duty -- hotel has a responsibility (duty) to provide adequate security for paying guests, it did not; 3) Direct cause -- Hotel did not have cameras, alarms, smoke alarms, or security for elevators or rooms; 4) Factual causation -- Despite warnings of burglaries, hotel did not bring in part-time help when its guard went home ill; 5) Legal causation or remoteness -- Hotel did not provide even the basis of adequate care for its guests despite knowing that issues existed.

There is an expectation that a hotel, as a paid location for out of town guests, will provide adequate security for those guests and their belongings. The hotel did not provide even the basis for adequate security for the size of hotel, number of rooms, paying guests, etc. It had one security guard for 1200-1500 people, that guard was home sick. The hotel was aware of a string of burglaries in the area but did nothing to beef up security (hire extra guards, etc.). In addition, the hotel had no alarms, no elevator security, no security cameras, unguarded exits, and no prevention strategy to keep its guests safe. Not only do guests have a reasonable right to believe that their property will be safe, they have a right to believe that unregistered individuals should not have access to the halls, elevators, exits, and rooms. In addition, guests have the right to expect that if there is a problem of some kind, there are measures in place to mitigate those issues, protect the guests, or at the very least, provide a way that someone monitoring the situation can call for help. The hotel had none of these, and was clearly indifferent to the preponderance and likelihood of a crime in their area.

Part 3- Frankly, the hotel has a weak case for defense. Only in the testimony of a Police Officer that Margreiter was intoxicated and likely was inconsistent in his memory of the events is there a semblance of doubt. The hotel also trivialized Margreiter's injuries, indicating that he was able to fly back to his home; but failed to return to New Orleans to describe and assist in the prosecution of these assailants. The hotel could possibly contend that in x number of months, it had y number of crimes, and that historically, its security measures were adequate for the area. It could also contend that although its own security officer was ill, it did have an "official" back up person in another employee. The hotel could certainly contend that it cannot be responsible for 1200-1500 individuals who might be out drinking and have lapses in judgment.

Margreiter and Case Law

Part 1 -- the appellate Court, in reviewing the Margreiter case, was obliged to rely on the evidence presented at the first trial, along with case law, to render judgment based on: a) whether the law was ignored or improperly interpreted, or b) whether evidence that should have been available and heard was not. In this case, the Court held for Margreiter because the hotel failed to prove that it had acted with due diligence in protecting its guests. Its claim of inebriated behavior by Margreiter was unsubstantiated by witnesses; its claim that he was well enough to travel also unsubstantiated based on medical treatment necessary when he returned to Denver. The subsequent surgeries and medical issues were proven to have a permanent effect upon his livelihood as well as permanent brain damage. With the lack of earnings, the trauma to his life, and his pharmaceutical expense, the Court did not find it necessary to reduce his award or find any evidence of fault other than the hotel.

Part 2 -- the Normann case -- the Court indicates that regarding safety, "The law imposes upon innkeeper's at least ordinary or reasonable care to protect their guests against injury by third persons, and some cases call for the exercise of a higher degree of care." The claims that the hotel permitted criminals to wander through the hotel, filed to maintain a competent staff, adequate security personnel, even to summon to police or have the hotel security officer investigate the incident all show gross negligence on the part of hotel management and owners.

Part 3 -- a) the Norman case was stronger than the Margreiter case in some ways because it had more detailed and robust evidence of longer term negligence by the hotel; however, an exception with the Margreiter case was a clear warning of premeditated criminal activity prior to the event. B) the presumption that an innkeeper has a basic, minimum standard of security to provide to its guest was clearly lacking at the hotel; as was adequate security. No one would believe that a hotel of 1200-1500 people could be adequately protected with no security equipment, emergency alarms, and one security guard (who was, at the time, ill and off premises). C) Heat sensing devices were immaterial to this particular case; the burglary could not have been prevented even if fire or heat devices were installed. D) the Margreiter case was easier to decide for two reasons: 1) There was precedence in Norman, meaning the responsibility of the hotel was already argued and a precedent set, and 2) Damage to Margreiter was medically proven, his lack of fault backed by testimony, and the clear negligence of such a large hotel with an inadequate staff apparent.