## Facts

- Gloria Blinzler and her husband, James A. Blinzler, were guests at a Marriott-operated hotel in Somerset, New Jersey.
- On November 13, 1992, shortly after 8:30 p.m., James experienced severe breathing difficulty in the hotel room and took nitroglycerin based on a prior heart history.
- Gloria used the hotel phone system to reach the PBX operator and requested an ambulance; the operator received the request no later than about 8:35 p.m.
- Hotel personnel were notified, but the central factual dispute was whether the PBX operator promptly called 911 or delayed the 911 call by roughly fourteen minutes.
- After the 911 call was placed, an ambulance took about thirteen minutes to reach the hotel.
- James suffered significant oxygen deprivation, was hospitalized, and died a few days later.
- At trial, Gloria offered medical testimony that if emergency medical technicians had arrived about ten minutes earlier, James would have recovered.
- Gloria also introduced evidence that Marriott destroyed a telephone log that would have fixed the time of the 911 call; Marriott claimed the log was discarded after thirty days as part of routine record handling.
- Gloria brought a diversity action in federal court seeking damages under New Jersey law, including wrongful death, loss of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) as a bystander.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find proximate causation under New Jersey’s “substantial possibility” (loss-of-chance) approach, based on the claimed delay in calling 911 and the medical testimony about survivability with earlier treatment.
2. Whether New Jersey bystander NIED required Gloria to have contemporaneously perceived the negligent act itself (the delayed 911 call), as opposed to witnessing the resulting medical emergency and its effects.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence and argument about Marriott’s destruction of the telephone log and allowing the jury to draw an adverse inference from the missing record.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing Gloria to reopen her case to add proof on causation.
5. Whether the district court erred in setting aside the jury’s NIED verdict (and whether the emotional-distress damages should be disturbed).

## Decision

- Reversed the district court’s post-verdict ruling that set aside the jury’s NIED award and reinstated the jury’s NIED verdict for Gloria.
- Affirmed the judgment in all other respects, including liability and damages on the wrongful-death and consortium components.
- Held that the evidence, including the medical testimony tied to the timing evidence, allowed the jury to find that Marriott’s delay negated a substantial possibility of survival under New Jersey causation doctrine.
- Held that, in this non-medical setting, New Jersey bystander NIED did not require Gloria to perceive the negligent omission at the moment it occurred; firsthand observation of the traumatic medical crisis and its consequences could satisfy the bystander standard.
- Held that the district court acted within its discretion in admitting spoliation evidence regarding the destroyed telephone log and permitting the jury to consider an adverse inference despite Marriott’s claim of routine disposal.
- Held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the plaintiff to reopen the evidence on causation.
- Declined to reduce or set aside the emotional-distress damages, finding no basis to treat the award as beyond allowable limits under the governing standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- Under New Jersey’s “substantial possibility” (loss-of-chance) approach, a defendant may be found a proximate cause of death when negligent delay in obtaining aid deprives the victim of a substantial chance of survival, supported by medical testimony linked to the timing of the delay.
- For New Jersey bystander NIED outside the medical-malpractice line of cases, recovery does not necessarily depend on observing the negligent act at the moment of commission; observing the injury-producing event and its immediate effects may suffice when the other bystander requirements are met.
- Evidence that a party destroyed or failed to preserve material records relevant to a disputed fact may be admissible, and a jury may be permitted to draw a negative inference, even without direct proof that the destruction was done for an improper purpose, when the circumstances justify it.
- Trial courts have broad authority over the order of proof, including allowing a party to reopen the case, absent unfair surprise or prejudice.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings and damage awards is deferential; reversal generally requires a clear abuse of discretion or an award outside permissible bounds.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that the jury could reasonably find Marriott’s fourteen-minute delay in calling 911 deprived James Blinzler of a substantial chance of survival under New Jersey law, and it ruled that Gloria Blinzler’s bystander NIED claim did not fail merely because she did not witness the delayed phone call itself; the court reinstated the jury’s NIED award and otherwise affirmed, including the admission of spoliation evidence about the destroyed telephone log, the trial court’s decision to permit reopening of proof, and the damages awarded.


Blinzler v. Marriott International, Inc., 81 F.3d 1148 (1996)