Burr v. Curtis Hotel Co., 22575.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1922
• Docket Number: No. 22575.,22575.
• Citation: 186 N.W. 302,151 Minn. 200
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: BURR v. CURTIS HOTEL CO. et al.

151 Minn. 200

186 N.W. 302

BURR

v.CURTIS HOTEL CO. et al.

No. 22575.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 20, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Wm. E. Hale, Judge.

Action by Gertrude M. Burr against the Curtis Hotel Company and others. Verdict for plaintiff, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Assuming, but not deciding, the court's instructions to be correct, that defendants were not answerable for the negligence of the concern which installed a passenger elevator in their hotel, if the jury found the concern to be well known and reputable and also found that the elevator fell because of a hidden defect not discovered by inspection, the evidence warranted the jury in rejecting the evidence of defendants' engineer that a hidden defect caused the fall.

A litigant, whose objection has caused the court to erroneously exclude evidence tending to sustain the verdict rendered, is not entitled to judgment non obstante. Barrows & Metcalf, of St. Paul, and Selover, Schultz & Mansfield, of Minneapolis, for appellants.

Geo, T. Simpson and John F. Dahl, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.

HOLT. J.

Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The motion was denied. The appeal is from the judgment.

A passenger elevator in the Curtis Hotel in Minneapolis fell from the first floor to the basement, a distance of some 10 or 12 feet. Plaintiff, a guest, was a passenger and received injuries for which she was awarded substantial damages in this action. The amount is not questioned. It is conceded that there was no contributory negligence, and that the mere fact that the elevator fell was, under the rule of res ipsa loquitur, prima facie proof of defendants' negligence. It is not disputed that the injuries were the proximate result of the falling of the elevator.

The sole basis for the appeal is the contention that defendants' evidence conclusively establishes their freedom from negligence, by showing that what caused the elevator to fall was a hidden defect which could not be detected by any sort of inspection. The elevator cage is supported by two wire cables passing over a drum at the top of the elevator shaft. These cables are fastened or anchored to a steel beam on the top of the cage by passing through bell-shaped holes called thimbles. The holes are just large enough at the top to admit the cables but widen toward the bottom. After the cables are passed through they are knotted and then melted babbitt metal is poured in, making a solid mass in the holes or thimbles, securely anchoring the cables. The testimony of the engineer was that, after the accident, he found that one cable had pulled out of its thimble and the other had broken off an inch and a half inside. He also testified that he melted out the babbitt in the thimbles and found that neither cable had been knotted. Were this true, there had been criminal negligence on the part of the workmen who had attached the cables to the elevator cage.

The learned trial court instructed the jury, in substance, that, if they found that the elevator had been installed by a wellknown and reputable concern, defendants had a right to assume that it was not only safe but that if duly operated no one would be injured, and if they found that one of the cables pulled out and the other broke because of a hidden defect which could not be discovered from the outside, defendants should have a verdict; also that, if they found that the cause of the fall of the elevator was the pulling out of the end of the cable because it was not properly fastened with a knot and the other broke, and defendants had used the highest degree of care in the purchase of the elevator and in its operation, the verdict should be for them; that defendants were not insurers that an accident to the elevator would not happen through some fault of the contractors or those who constructed or placed it in position. We shall not...