Goldstein v. Chateau Orleans, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 November 2021
• Docket Number: 2020-CA-0401
• Citation: 331 So.3d 1027
• Parties: Jody Alan GOLDSTEIN v. CHATEAU ORLEANS, INC., Leisure Management, Ltd., and XYZ Insurance Company
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

331 So.3d 1027

Jody Alan GOLDSTEIN

v.CHATEAU ORLEANS, INC., Leisure Management, Ltd., and XYZ Insurance Company

NO. 2020-CA-0401

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

November 12, 2021

Joseph M. Bruno, BRUNO & BRUNO LLP, 855 Baronne Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Daniel A. Meyer, BRUNO & BRUNO, LLP, 855 Baronne Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Jay Russell Sever, Alexis Polk Joachim, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP, 365 Canal Street, Canal Place - Suite 2000, New Orleans, LA 70130-6534, John C. Wegmann, Corey D. Moll, Glen B. Adams, PORTEOUS HAINKEL & JOHNSON, L.L.P., 704 Caroldelet Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, John William Hite, III, SALLEY HITE & MERCER, LLC, 365 Canal Street, Suite 1710, One Canal Place, New Orleans, LA 70130, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase )

Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods

This case concerns whether a business can be held liable for the personal injuries sustained by a customer at the hands of an independent third party and the degree to which the business may be held responsible. We further examine the trial court's discretion in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a verdict consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant-Appellee, Leisure Management, Ltd. ("Appellee"), maintains and operates the Chateau Orleans ("the Chateau"), a combination hotel, timeshare, and condominium facility located in the New Orleans French Quarter. The family of Plaintiff-Appellant, Jody Goldstein ("Appellant"), owns a one-week timeshare interest in Unit 13 of the Chateau.

On February 4, 2005, the Friday before Mardi Gras,¹ Appellant arrived at the Chateau and immediately observed a nearly four (4) foot long crack in the center of the door to his unit. The door was secured by a doorknob lock, an eye-loop hook, and a chain. Appellant immediately reported the cracked door to the manager on duty and was allegedly told the door would be replaced. Appellant inquired about the door multiple times, but the door was never repaired or replaced.

In the early morning of February 9, 2005, Appellant was asleep in his unit when he was awakened to the loud sound of the unit's door being broken into. Appellant investigated the sound and was confronted by three (3) assailants who proceeded to beat and rob him resulting in serious, permanent injuries. Specifically, the cartilage in his nose collapsed, leading to a chronic nasal obstruction and inflammation. He now has a septum deformity, which causes congestion, frequent nosebleeds, and headaches. He has developed sleep apnea, snoring, postnasal drip, recurrent sinus infections, loss of the ability to smell, and vertigo. Additionally, Appellant sustained dental injuries, including dislodged teeth, and root fractures. Finally, Appellant suffered injuries to his eyes resulting in blurred vision, headaches, and floaters in his field of vision.

Because it was Mardi Gras week, the Chateau had no employees on site from 5:00 p.m. on Lundi Gras until Ash Wednesday morning, a period of approximately forty (40) continuous hours. The assailants were never identified.

On February 7, 2006, Appellant filed a "Petition for Damages" against Chateau Orleans, Inc., Appellee Leisure Management, Ltd., and XYZ Insurance Company² (Collectively referred to as "Defendants").

On April 23-25, 2019, a jury trial was held. Defendants filed a motion for directed verdict. The motion was granted in favor of Defendant Chateau Orleans and the claims against Chateau Orleans were dismissed. The motion was denied regarding Appellant. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in favor of Appellant. The jury apportioned Appellee one hundred percent (100%) fault for Appellant's injuries and ordered Appellee to pay damages to Appellant as follows: $500,000.00 for pain and suffering; $800,000.00 for mental anguish; $200,000.00 for scarring and disfigurement; and $75,000.00 for past medical expenses. No fault was apportioned to the unnamed assailants.

On May 16, 2019, in response to the jury's verdict, Appellee filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") and/or remittitur or motion for new trial.

Prior to the trial court's ruling on the motion for JNOV, Mr. Goldstein and Scottsdale Insurance Company entered into a partial settlement pursuant to Gasquet v. Commercial Union Insurance Co ., 391 So.2d 466 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1980)³ , and Scottsdale was dismissed from the lawsuit on January 21, 2020.

On September 20, 2019, a hearing was held regarding the JNOV. Following oral arguments, the trial court took the matter under advisement.

On June 10, 2020, the trial court issued its ruling granting the JNOV in favor of Appellee and dismissed Appellee from the case.

On June 11, 2020, Appellant filed a "Notice of Devolutive Appeal of Judgment Granting Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict" and the trial court set a return date "as provided by law."⁴

This appeal timely followed.

DISCUSSION

Assignments of Error

Appellant asserts the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred by basing its JNOV, reversing the jury verdict, on a faulty application of the Posecai balancing test, where it failed to consider any evidence beyond the prior incidents of similar crime at the Chateau Orleans.

2. The trial court erred by limiting the "area" of prior crimes in its foreseeability analysis to the physical premises of the Chateau Orleans, resulting in the failure to consider hundreds of relevant prior crimes.

3. The trial court erred by failing to consider prior incidents of crimes of opportunity or economic gain in and around the Chateau Orleans as part of its foreseeability analysis.

4. The trial court erred by concluding there was no basis to impose a duty on Appellee to provide adequate security to the plaintiff despite Appellee's admission that the Chateau Orleans is in a dangerous area at night.

5. The trial court erred by failing to consider the heightened duty owed by Appellee to Appellant as an Innkeeper in its determination that Appellee owed no duty to provide adequate security to Goldstein.

6. The trial court erred by failing to consider Appellee's negligence regarding the defective door to Unit 13 as [a] relevant factor to its inadequate security, and an independent basis for liability under La. C.C. art. 2317.1.

Analysis

Standard of Review

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1811(F) is the authority for a JNOV and provides that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted on either the issue of liability or on the issue of damages or on both. Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 2000-0445, p. 4 (La. 11/28/00), 774 So. 2d 84, 89.

The standard of review for a JNOV on appeal is a two-part inquiry. Id ., 2000-0445, p. 5, 774 So. 2d at 89. First, the appellate court must determine if the trial court erred in granting the JNOV. Id .

The standard to be used in determining whether a JNOV has been properly granted has been set forth in our jurisprudence as follows:

‘A JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The motion should be granted only when the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach different conclusions, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. If there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. In making this determination, the court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.’

Id . (internal citations omitted). "In ruling on a motion for JNOV, a court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury." Young v. United States Auto. Ass'n Cas. Co. , 2007-1590, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/10/09), 15 So. 3d 327, 331 ; In re New Orleans Train Car Leakage Fire Litigation , 2000–1919, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/20/05), 903 So.2d 9, 15 ; Coleman v. Deno , 99-2998, p. 22 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/25/01), 787 So.2d 446, 465. If a reasonable jury exercising impartial judgment might reach a different conclusion, then granting the JNOV was an error and the jury verdict should be reinstated. Davis v. Lazarus , 2004-0582, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/8/06), 927 So. 2d 456, 461 (quoting Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. , 583 So.2d 829, 832 (La.1991) ).

Second, if the appellate court determines that the trial court correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review. Davis , 2000-0445, p. 5, 774 So. 2d at 89. In applying the manifest error standard of review, the appellate court must not determine whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but only whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Chaisson v. Louisiana Rock Monsters, LLC , 2013-1423, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/2/14), 140 So. 3d 55, 57 (citing Poissenot v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office , 09-2793, p. 6 (La. 1/9/11), 56 So.3d 170, 174 ). When reviewing facts, if there are two permissible views of the evidence, a factfinder's choice between them can never be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Id. (citations omitted). ‘ "[I]f the [factfinder's] findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.’ " Id . (quoting Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal...