Mathias v

.docx

School

California State University, Northridge *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

280

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by KidBoar4131 on coursehero.com

Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging Inc. 347 F.3d 672 (7 th Cir.2003) Facts: This case arises from bedbug bites Burl and Desiree Mathias received while staying in a Motel 6 in downtown Chicago. Evidence was presented by Mathias that the defendants personnel refused to respond to complaints of various complaints from guest and disregarding evidence of a bedbug infestation problem. In support of Mathis’s claims that there was “willful and wanton conduct” dating back to 1998. An Ecolab report shows that there were bedbugs at the Motel 6 location, at that time the defendant declined treatment of the bedbugs. The following year bedbugs were discovered again by Ecolab in the same location however the defendant only exterminated the specific room. in question. Forwarding to 2003 the bedbugs still had not been treated. In November when the plaintiffs checked into the motel6 they were given a room that had been classified at the hotel as “DO NOT RENT UNTIL TREATED”. Mathis sued Accor Economy Lodging Inc., For “willful and wanton conduct” The jury found Mathias in favor. The defendant appealed and argued that at worst they were only guilty of negligence and that the defendant should not receive punitive damages. However, the first complaint has no possible merit and the evidence shows recklessness. Issue(s): The court was asked to decide if Accor Economy Lodging Inc. refusal to act in response to complaints, engaged in “Willful and Wanton conduct”. t he amount of punitive damages Rule: Recklessness, conscious indifference to a known and substantial risk of harm created by one’s behavior; often treated as a near equivalent of intentional wrongdoing. Punitive damages should be admeasured by standards or rules rather than in a completely ad hoc manner, and this does not tell the court what the maximum ratio of punitive to compensatory damages should be in a particular case. To determine that, the court must consider why punitive damages are awarded in the first place. Application : A federal court jury first reviewed the instructions on willful and wanton conduct with punitive in compensatory damages. The court then looked at the evidence provided against the defendant. However, the defendant had known fact is that there was a bedbug issue from Ecolab and extermination service that specializes in issues like this. The court held up that the law applied. Next the court noted that there was negligence by failure to act upon the reports provided by Ecolab. Evidence also shows that the court noted “desk clerks were instructed to call “bedbugs “ticks” on the theory that customers would be less alarmed though in fact ticks are more dangerous than bedbugs. Finally, the court found that the evidence was substantial enough to prove that Accor Economy Lodging Inc. Was guilty of “willful and wanton conduct”.
Conclusion: District court’s judgment in favor of Burl and Desiree Mathias was affirmed.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help