Black v. Heininger
| Decision Date | 22 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 3975,3975 |
| Citation | 163 So.2d 3 |
| Parties | Ralph BLACK and Winifred G. Black, his wife, d/b/a Holiday Court, Appellants, v. Ralph F. HEININGER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fee, Parker & Neill, Ft. Pierce, for appellants.
Rupert Jasen Smith and O'Laughlin & O'Laughlin, Ft. Pierce, for appellee.
The defendants appeal a final judgment on a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages in the sum of $5,000.00. The plaintiff suffered severe burns while taking a tub shower in the room he and his wife were occupying at the defendants' motel. He alleged that the defendants negligently allowed the water to get too hot, negligently failed to maintain the water spigots in proper condition, and negligently failed to provide operable sliding doors to the shower.
It appears from the record that the plaintiff turned on the hot and cold water in the shower and regulated it to his liking. The fixture was the kind that requires the bather to regulate the water by turning on the spigots, running water through a bibcock into the tub and then lifting a plunger to direct the water up and through the showerhead. The plaintiff followed this procedure. As he finished bathing he proceeded to turn the water off. The cold water turned off but the hot water faucet 'froze,' showering him with steaming hot spray. In his effort to get out of the tub he temporarily trapped himself, finding difficulty in manipulating the sliding doors during the sudden emergency. When he finally extricated himself he had been severely burned by the scalding water. The plaintiff's wife testified that she had difficulty in turning off the spigot and had to bang on it with her shoe before the valve closed.
The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. After the plaintiff presented his case, the defendants moved for directed verdict. This motion was denied as was also the renewed motion at the close of all the evidence. The defendants testified that the room was constructed in 1957; that they had no previous complaints; and that they found the shower in proper working order after being informed of plaintiff's injury. The record does not indicate whether defendants permitted the hot water to run for any particular length of time before testing it. The defendants testified that no repairs had been made and no complaints had been registered since the incident in question although the room was rented. Similar testimony was given by the defendants' maid.
The defendants contend on appeal that the complaint did not state a cause of action and that, moreover, the plaintiff palpably failed to prove his case as alleged inasmuch as there was no evidence to show that the defendants actually knew or reasonably should have known of the 'latent' or 'concealed' defects or the alleged malfunctioning of the shower mechanism. In this connection, as previously indicated, the defendants adduced evidence to show that the shower fixture and the sliding door were in proper working order immediately after the plaintiff's mishap. The defendants also submit that the trial court erred in refusing to give to the jury two instructions requested by the defendants.
The points on appeal will be discussed seriatim. The initial question is whether or not it was error to deny the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and in this particular the authorities cited to us and those collated in our own research convince us that the trial court ruled correctly. The essential factual allegations are included in the following paragraphs of the complaint:
'4. On the morning of March 3, 1960, at approximately 8:00 A.M., the Plaintiff attempted to take a shower in the bath provided by the Defendants. After the Plaintiff regulated the temperature of the water with due care and when the temperature of the water was not unduly hot, he began to take a shower and suddenly the water coming from the shower was hot to the point that it began to severely burn the Plaintiff, and he was unable to turn off the water faucets. The Plaintiff immediately attempted to get out of the bath tub which had sliding glass doors, but was unable to get the doors open because they were stuck. After yelling for his wife to come to his aid, he and she were able to get the door open and his wife pulled him from the shower.
'5. The Plaintiff was required to seek medical attention for the severe burns he received as a result of said accident.
'6. The Defendants were negligent in not maintaining proper bathing facilities for their guests in that the water temperature was either allowed to become too hot, or that the hot and cold water regulators were not properly cared for and they became inoperative due to lack of attention by the Defendants, or the sliding glass doors enclosing the shower area were not properly maintained due to the negligence of the Defendants, which prevented the Plaintiff from safely escaping the boiling hot water.
Although it is elementary that innkeepers are not insurers of the safety of their guests, the quoted allegations of the instant complaint are sufficient to invoke consideration of the question of whether or not the defendants were in fact negligent. For example, the complaint contains allegations indicating excessive temperature of the hot water and that the source and the regulation of the temperature of the hot water were basically within the control of the defendants. If the defendants were negligent in permitting the water to become dangerously overheated or if they otherwise failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and maintaining the shower facilities with respect to discoverable defects or malfunctions of the mechanism, such remissness conceivably could constitute causative negligence depending upon the evidence; and there is respectable authority for the proposition that the furnishing of water overheated to the point that it constitutes a hazard to guests tends to show negligence. See and compare Parsons v. Dwight State Co., 1938, 301 Mass. 324, 17 N.E.2d 197, 118 A.L.R. 1099; Brooks v. Utah Hotel Co., 1945, 108 Utah 220, 159 P.2d 127; Nichols v. Nashville Housing Authority, 1949, 187 Tenn. 683, 216 S.W.2d 694; Cohen v. Borough of Bradley Beach, 1947, 135 N.J.L. 276, 50 A.2d 882; Campbell v. Hagen-Burger, 1951, 327 Mass. 159, 97 N.E.2d 409; Dahlgren v. Coe, 1942, 311 Mass. 18, 40 N.E.2d 5; Wallace v. Speier, 1943, 60 Cla.App.2d 387, 140 P.2d 900; Young v. Knickerbocker Hotel Co., 1948, 334 Ill.App. 80, 78 N.E.2d 326; Adams v. Dow Hotel, 1938, 25 Cal.App.2d 51, 76 P.2d 210; 18 A.L.R.2d 973 and cases cited therein. cf. Miller v. Shull, Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 521, 522; 29 Am.Jur., Innkeepers, § 67.
The defendants' second point concerns the denial of their motions for directed verdict. Although no one was obtested to establish the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Early v. John A. Cooper Company
...of bathrooms and the chattels or fixtures therein that guests can use them in an ordinary manner without danger. Black v. Heininger (Fla.App.1964), 163 So.2d 3; Coyle v. Beryl's Motor Hotel (Ohio App.1961), 171 N.E.2d 355; Lincoln Operating Co. v. Gillis (1953) 232 Ind. 551, 114 N.E.2d 873;......
-
Moisan v. Frank K. Kriz, Jr., M.D., P.A.
...court enters a directed verdict, it implicitly holds that there is a lack of evidence to support one side of the case. Black v. Heninger, 163 So.2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). On appeal, a reviewing court must consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in deciding there was no evidenc......
-
Highlands Ins. Co. v. Gilday, 79-1805
...292 So.2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). However, such owner or operator is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons. Black v. Heininger, 163 So.2d 3 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). Nor is the owner or operator liable for the conduct of another on his premises which causes injury to a business invitee unle......
-
U.S. Life Ins. Co. in the City of New York v. Town and Country Hospital, Inc.
...also have given instruction 6, its failure to do so was not error since instruction 12 adequately covered the subject. Black v. Heininger, 163 So.2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Nevertheless, Town & Country seeks to sustain the trial court's grant of a new trial on the authority of Cloud v. Fallis......