Mrs. M.C. and Mr. B.C. v. Yeargin

• Decision Date: 20 July 1999
• Citation: 11 S.W.3d 604
• Parties: (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) . Mrs. M.C. and Mr. B.C., Plaintiffs/Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. Clifford Yeargin and Marriott International Corp., Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Respondents. Case Number: 74077 and 74078 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

11 S.W.3d 604 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000)

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Mrs. M.C. and Mr. B.C., Plaintiffs/Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. Clifford Yeargin and Marriott International Corp., Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Respondents.

Case Number: 74077 and 74078

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

Handdown Date: 07/20/99

Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Timothy Wilson

Counsel for Appellant: Thomas C. Walsh and Elizabeth C. Carver

Counsel for Respondent: James E. Hullverson, Jr.

Opinion Summary: M.C. and B.C. instigated this action against Clifford Yeargin, Marriott International Corp. and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. for damages caused to M.C. following a physical attack upon her while a guest at the Marriott Hotel. Plaintiffs sought recovery on several theories. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs on all theories and assessed damages against Defendants. Following the verdict, Marriott International Corp. and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. motioned for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts, or, in the alternative, for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur or, in the alternative, to amend judgment. The trial court judge granted the motion for a directed verdict only in regard to the deceit at check-in theory. Marriott International Corp. and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. appeal the jury verdict alleging numerous trial errors. Plaintiffs cross-appeal the directed verdict on the deceit at check-in theory.

JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.

Division One holds: The trial court correctly ruled in granting its JNOV in regard to plaintiffs deceit at check-in theory. The trial court erred in allowing impermissible evidence and in submission of an improper instruction.

Opinion Author: James A. Pudlowski, Presiding Judge

Opinion Vote: JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION. Crandall, Jr., and Ahrens, JJ., concur.

Opinion:

This is an appeal from a jury tried case. M.C. (Plaintiff) and B.C. (Plaintiff's husband) instigated this action against Clifford Yeargin (Yeargin), Marriott International Corp. and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (collectively, Marriott). Plaintiffs sought recovery on several theories. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs on all theories and assessed damages against Defendants as follows: three million dollars compensatory damages, five million dollars punitive damages against Yeargin,¹ and post-judgment interest; three million dollars compensatory damages, eight million seven hundred thousand dollars punitive damages, and two million eight hundred twenty-two thousand forty dollars in interest against Marriott; and fifty thousand dollars compensatory damages against Marriott for Plaintiff's husband's loss of consortium claim.

Following the verdict, Marriott moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts (JNOV), or, in the alternative, for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur or, in the alternative, to amend judgment. The trial court judge granted Marriott's motion for a directed verdict only in regard to the deceit at check-in theory.

Marriott appeals claiming the trial court erred in: denying its motions for a directed verdict and JNOV because Plaintiff failed to submit substantial evidence that Marriott breached any duty to her or caused her damage; denying its motions for a directed verdict and JNOV on Plaintiff's husband's loss of consortium claim; denying its motions for a directed verdict and JNOV on punitive damages; denying its motions for a new trial because the general damage verdicts could not be upheld in that the trial court granted its JNOV regarding the deceit at check-in claim; overruling its objections to Instruction No. 13; allowing Plaintiffs to read a portion of a Federal appellate court opinion and deposition testimony from that case during the punitive stage of the trial; admitting evidence of Plaintiff's fear of contracting AIDS as unreasonable as a matter of law and her subsequent abortion; permitting Dr. Bremner to testify; refusing to enter a remittitur of the jury's compensatory damages or grant a new trial for excessive compensation; and denying its motion for a new trial and refusing to enter a remittitur on the issue of punitive damages. Plaintiffs cross appeal the JNOV. We reverse and remand with instructions for a new trial.

Upon review of a jury verdict, we view the facts in the light most favorable to its award. Fields v. Mitch Crawford's Holiday Motors Co., 947 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Bayne v. Jenkins, 593 S.W.2d 519, 521 (Mo. banc 1980). As a preliminary matter, we note that neither party to this appeal complied with Rule 84.04(c) in that neither party submitted a fair and concise statement of facts.² Additionally, both parties failed to comply with Rule 84.04(h) in that there were either missing or incorrect citations throughout the statement of facts and argument portions of the briefs. We have, after reviewing 3369 pages of transcript and legal file, compiled the following relevant facts which meet our dictated standard of review:

Plaintiff arrived in Saint Louis for business on 1 August 1994. She checked in at the Marriott Pavilion Hotel in downtown Saint Louis. Plaintiff is a member of Marriott's club for frequent guests and preferred customers known as "Marriott's Club Marquis." As a member of this club, Plaintiff is entitled to an upgrade from a regular hotel room to a concierge hotel room when available.³ Plaintiff requested a room upgrade at the time of her arrival. Plaintiff testified that she wanted to be in a concierge room for the increased amenities, including an extra measure of safety. Marriott did not upgrade her room status; however, it did issue her a key to the concierge floors.

On the morning of 2 August 1994, Plaintiff exited her room at approximately⁴ 6:40 a.m. to meet several business associates for a breakfast meeting in the lounge area on a concierge floor. When she attempted to leave her room, Yeargin pushed Plaintiff back into the room. Plaintiff fought with Yeargin. The commotion caused the guest in another room to get out of the shower and call the Marriott operator to ask for assistance in the neighboring room because there was a situation of "an emergency nature." The Marriott operator called Marriott security. Within one or two minutes, security officers⁵ arrived at Plaintiff's door.

As the security approached the closed door of Plaintiff's room, they heard two comments: a woman yelled "Please, don't kill me!" and a man's voice responding, "Shut up, bitch, or I'm going to kill you." Security officers decided not to intervene in the events inside of the hotel room. Instead, they went to a security phone on that floor. The phone, however, was inoperable because it did not have a phone cord.

One security officer then decided to walk to the elevators and use his radio to call the Marriott operator and request police assistance. The security officer testified that after he attempted to use the security phone, it took him two to three additional minutes before he radioed the operator. When speaking with the Marriott operator, the security officer intentionally did not communicate the gravity of the situation in Plaintiff's room; he worried that someone might hear him and become alarmed. The Marriott operator then relayed the incorrect information from the security officer to the Saint Louis Police.

There was conflicting testimony that because the situation was misidentified as a domestic dispute, the police did not react to the gravity of a life-threatening situation. While waiting for the police to arrive, it is unclear what Marriott security officers were doing. However, they did observe Yeargin exit Plaintiff's room, enter the elevator, and casually walk out of the hotel while holding a washcloth to his bleeding face.

Contemporaneously to the security officers standing outside of Plaintiff's room, Plaintiff's associates began to worry about her because she failed to promptly arrive at their early morning meeting. They decided to call her, but there was no answer in her room. Plaintiff testified that she heard their telephone call, but was unable to answer the phone as she was fighting with Yeargin. During this fight, both Plaintiff and Yeargin suffered lacerations from which they bled. At approximately the same time as the phone call, Yeargin made loud threats to Plaintiff which presented the possibility of a homicide and were heard by the Marriott security officers. Then, Yeargin began to sodomize her. Yeargin retrieved a washcloth from the bathroom and exited the room.

Once Yeargin vacated the premises, police arrived and began their investigation. Marriott's security cameras did not capture a picture of Yeargin. Yeargin was not apprehended by police until 24 September 1994, fifty four days after the assault on Plaintiff. At that time, police learned and informed Plaintiff that Yeargin was HIV+.

In late August, Plaintiff discovered she was pregnant. Testimony revealed that Plaintiff suffered stress and chemical changes in her body due to the attack which, in turn, rendered her birth control pills ineffective. Because of her exposure to Yeargin's blood during the attack, Plaintiff and her husband were concerned about transmission of HIV to the fetus. After learning that had Yeargin infected Plaintiff the risk of transmission to the fetus was 40%, Plaintiff and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy.

Upon appeal, we remind attorneys to follow Rule 84.04(f) in the compilation of their briefs. This Rule extends to both Appellants and Respondents. When responding to an appellant's brief, the points relied on should remain separate, divisible arguments and should be addressed in the order presented. In addressing the numerous issues...