Margaret Magers v. Diamondhead Resort, LLC
224 So. 3d 106
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On June 24, 2011 Margaret Magers was raped in a hotel-lobby bathroom at Diamondhead Resort by Alfredo Mongoy Cruz, who was later convicted of forcible rape.
- Cruz had been staying overnight while working nearby; Diamondhead admitted Cruz was not properly registered contrary to its policy.
- Magers sued Diamondhead for negligent security (premises liability), alleging the hotel failed to provide reasonable security or warn of dangerous conditions.
- At trial the jury returned a verdict for Diamondhead on December 19, 2014; Magers moved for a new trial which was denied and she appealed.
- On appeal Magers challenged (1) jury instructions P-14 together with D-3 and D-8, (2) exclusion of cross-examination into security guard Anthony Wright’s prior convictions, and (3) exclusion of references to Cruz’s immigration status.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the instructions taken together fairly stated the law and that the evidentiary exclusions were within the trial court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions (P-14 with D-3, D-8) | Instructions conflicted and impermissibly let the jury decide duty and foreseeability, misleading jurors | Instructions correctly stated proximate cause/foreseeability and Diamondhead consistently admitted duty; instructions read as a whole were correct | Affirmed — instructions, when read together, fairly announced the law and did not mislead the jury |
| Cross-examination of security guard’s prior convictions | Magers should impeach Wright with prior felonies to challenge credibility | Prior convictions were remote, partly post-incident, and prejudicial; limited questioning was proper under Rules 403/609 | Affirmed — trial court properly limited inquiry; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Reference to assailant’s immigration status | Immigration status was relevant to reasonable security and Diamondhead’s failures | Status was irrelevant and potentially unfairly prejudicial; hotel’s admissions about registration covered the security issue | Affirmed — exclusion proper as status was irrelevant and prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Kroger v. Knox, 98 So. 3d 441 (Miss. 2012) (foreseeability and atmosphere-of-violence standard in premises-liability assaults)
- Crain v. Cleveland Lodge 1532, Order of Moose Inc., 641 So. 2d 1186 (Miss. 1994) (rejecting near-strict liability for third-party crimes; focus on foreseeability/knowledge)
- Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores E. L.P., 99 So. 3d 112 (Miss. 2012) (criminal acts as intervening causes and foreseeability analysis)
- Double Quick Inc. v. Moore, 73 So. 3d 1162 (Miss. 2011) (same, on intervening criminal acts breaking causal chain)
- Windless v. State, 185 So. 3d 956 (Miss. 2015) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- Whitten v. Cox, 799 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 2000) (standard of review for admission/exclusion of evidence)
- Johnson v. Fargo, 604 So. 2d 306 (Miss. 1992) (impeachment by prior convictions in civil cases must balance probative value vs. prejudice)