Margreiter v. New Hotel Monteleone

I have attached links to TWO cases. The first case is Margreiter v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 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. Please ead and then answer the questions below.

During an appeal, the appeals court is required to rely on the evidence submitted during the trial. The "record" which is made by both parties during the trial, including all objections and other submissions of evidence, are binding on the appeals court, unless it was erroneous or not reasonable to believe or accept that evidence. Further, decisions of fact and credibility are typically left to the jury to make, and appeals courts prefer not revisiting those decisions (unless they are beyond the weight of the evidence or defy credulity.) Because the jury can weigh the body language of the witnesses during trial, and the record on appeal can't 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 decisions, based on the record before them.

1. Please explain to me the decision of the appeals court in the Margreiter case (especially what facts the court relied on in its decision, and which facts the losing party requested the appeals court decide the case on, but it refused to do so).

2. The Margreiter court used the Nordmann case to assist it with making its decision (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? Also, what facts did the Nordmann court rely on to determine there had been a breach of the duty by the Nordmann court?

3. The Margreiter court doesn't state which duty it imposed on the hotel - it simply recites as "precedent" the Nordmann case for its legal basis. In light of the duty of care which the Margreiter court used in its decision, briefly compare the two sets of facts from the two cases.

a) Does the Margreiter case have as strong of facts as the Nordmann case for holding the hotel liable?

b) Which facts do you feel most strongly weigh in favor of the court's decision in the Margreiter case?

c) Which facts do you feel were a stretch by the court in Margreiter?

d) Which case do you feel was more of a "slam-dunk" case to decide and why?

Brief response please.