Bloch v. Bowline Hospitality III, LLC, D/B/A Mafolie Hotel and Restaurant

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether the hospital blood-alcohol measurement of 0.22 could be admitted despite disagreement over serum versus whole-blood testing.
2. Whether the treating emergency-room physician could testify as a lay or fact witness about Bloch's observed condition and recorded blood-alcohol level, but not opine about his earlier blood-alcohol level.
3. Whether evidence labeling Bloch an alcoholic should be excluded as unsupported and unfairly prejudicial.
4. Whether expert testimony concerning Bloch's increased risk of developing dementia, Alzheimer's disease, or Parkinson's disease was admissible under Daubert and Rules 401, 402, 403, and 702.
5. Whether evidence of potential future medical expenses for those diseases was too speculative to admit.
6. Whether an ENT physician could testify about neurological disease risks and whether his opinions about smell and vestibular rehabilitation costs were reliable.
7. Whether credit-card transaction expert Todd Gentilucci could rely on information supplied by a payment processor and testify about transaction timestamps.
8. Whether an email from the payment processor could be used to impeach Gentilucci and admitted under the residual hearsay exception.
9. Whether Virgin Islands Code section 161 barred evidence and argument that Mafolie overserved Bloch alcohol or failed to provide TIPS training.
10. Whether a safety expert could testify that Bloch would not have fallen had the guardrail been forty-two inches high.
11. Whether evidence referring to liability insurance, subsequent installation of a higher guardrail, and demonstrative medical illustrations was admissible.

Holdings

1. The hospital's 0.22 serum-alcohol measurement was relevant and was not excludable as misleading or unfairly prejudicial merely because toxicologists disputed whether serum or whole blood more accurately reflected Bloch's true blood-alcohol level.
2. Dr. Wheatley could testify as a fact witness about what he observed while treating Bloch, including Bloch's physical condition and the blood-alcohol level reflected in the hospital records, but could not opine about Bloch's blood-alcohol level before the hospital test unless properly identified as an expert.
3. The defendant and its witnesses were prohibited from labeling Bloch an alcoholic.
4. The plaintiff's neurologists could testify that Bloch's traumatic brain injury placed him at increased risk of developing dementia, Alzheimer's disease, or Parkinson's disease.
5. Bloch could not introduce evidence or seek future medical expenses for the potential development of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, or Parkinson's disease without expert evidence establishing that such expenses would be incurred with reasonable medical certainty.
6. Bloch could seek non-economic damages based on a reasonable fear of developing future neurological ailments because he had a present traumatic brain injury and evidence that the injury increased his risk of those ailments.
7. Dr. Smolarz could not testify about speculative costs for a full smell-treatment workup or vestibular rehabilitation, and, as an ENT physician without demonstrated neurological expertise, could not testify about Bloch's risk of neurological diseases.
8. Todd Gentilucci could testify about credit-card transaction timestamps because he applied specialized knowledge to information supplied by the payment processor, and the underlying data was of the type experts in the field would reasonably rely on.
9. The defendant could use the payment-processor email to impeach Gentilucci, and the court permitted the email into evidence under the residual hearsay exception with a proper foundation.
10. Virgin Islands Code section 161 barred Bloch from arguing that Mafolie was liable for overserving him alcohol or failing to train employees under the TIPS program, although Bloch could still pursue liability based on a premises defect such as a low guardrail.
11. The plaintiff's safety expert could testify that Bloch would not have been expected to fall over a properly installed forty-two-inch guardrail.
12. Bloch could reference the insurance company for the limited purpose of explaining his role in a prior safety inspection, but could not use liability-insurance evidence to prove Mafolie's negligence.
13. Bloch could not introduce evidence that Mafolie installed a higher guardrail after the accident to prove negligence, causation, impeachment, or to rebut evidence concerning his prior inspection.
14. The plaintiff could introduce a demonstrative medical illustration if the underlying medical records were admissible and the plaintiff established that the records were authentic and that the illustration accurately summarized them.

Key quotations

Factual background

On February 7, 2024, Peter Bloch consumed alcoholic beverages at Mafolie Hotel and Restaurant and fell over a stairway railing while exiting, sustaining a serious traumatic brain injury and other injuries. Bloch alleged that the guardrail was below applicable safety standards and caused or contributed to his fall. Mafolie asserted that Bloch's intoxication and conduct caused the accident. The motions addressed evidence concerning blood alcohol testing, expert opinions, future neurological risks and expenses, overservice of alcohol, the railing height, insurance, subsequent remedial measures, hearsay, and demonstrative medical evidence.

Procedural history

Peter Bloch filed a damages complaint alleging that Bowline Hospitality III, LLC, doing business as Mafolie Hotel and Restaurant, breached its duty to maintain safe premises because the stairway guardrail was too low. The defendant answered and asserted comparative negligence, including intoxication as a cause of the fall. After discovery, the parties filed numerous motions in limine, and the court held a hearing on December 12, 2025. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part.