Nordmann v. National Hotel Company

¶ … Nordmann v. National Hotel Company and Margreiter v. New Hotel are similar in many ways but also distinguishable but the first issue that must be addressed is how the Court of Appeals in Margreiter handled the appellant's attempt to have it consider reconsider evidence that the trial court had already decided. The appellant argues points about the level of the appellee's intoxication; his ability to fly back to Denver; and his failure to return to New Orleans to identify his assailants as support for its defense. The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed such offering as being inappropriate and correctly pointed out that a determination on such issues more was more properly the province of the trial court. Instead, the Court of Appeals properly relied upon the facts that were contained in the record that was presented to it.

The Court of Appeals in Nordmann had a variety of collateral issues to address but as to the issue of duty the Court very succinctly set forth its position on such issue by stating simply that innkeepers must exercise at least ordinary or reasonable care to protect their guests against injury by third persons. In the Nordmann case the trial court found that the defendant/appellant failed to have adequate security staff available considering the combined number of guests at the hotel and the number attending the ball that was taking place at or near the same time as the assault on the plaintiffs. The court also noted that the defendant/appellant's behavior in response to the report of the incident was also negligent.

In comparing the facts in the two cases, the negligence of the hotel in the Nordmann case seems to have been more significant to the extent that it is less understandable how the hotel could have been so severely understaffed given the great number of patrons present in the facility on the date of the incident. Additionally, the hotel's failure to respond subsequent to the initial incident brings into question what could have been done to minimize the situation if more immediate action was taken. The circumstances presented in the Margreiter case are a bit more subtle in that there is some question as to whether or not the lack of properly securing the freight elevator was a foreseeable cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Plus, where and how the plaintiff's injuries occurred in Margreiter are far more questionable than how the plaintiffs in Nordmann occurred. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs in Nordmann were injured in the hotel while the possibility exists that the plaintiff in Margreiter could have been injured off the premises and by someone who had no access to the hotel.

What hurts the defendant hotel in Margreiter is its failure to properly secure the freight elevator and to maintain its normal security staff on the night of the incident. Because of these factors, the inference is created that the hotel failed to maintain the proper security level. Beyond this, however, there is little connection between this failure by the hotel and the plaintiff's injuries. The argument by the defendant hotel that the injury could have occurred in a manner totally unconnected to the hotel is highly plausible. Due to the fact the plaintiff was intoxicated to the point that he offered little in support of the issue of proximate cause should have raised some doubt in the mind of the jury as to what occurred.