Day v. Piedmont Hotel, Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1957
• Docket Number: No. 36771,No. 2,36771,2
• Citation: Day v. Piedmont Hotel, Inc., 99 S.E.2d 513, 96 Ga.App. 215 (Ga. App. 1957)
• Parties: A. C. DAY v. PIEDMONT HOTEL, Inc
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 513

99 S.E.2d 513

96 Ga.App. 215

A. C. DAY v. PIEDMONT HOTEL, Inc.

No. 36771.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

July 11, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court.

The court did not err in denying the motion for new trial as to the general or special grounds.

Allen C. Day brought suit against the Piedmont Hotel, Inc. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff's amended motion for new trial was denied and he excepts.

The evidence shows substantially as follows: Allen C. Day testified substantially that in July 1954 he was in room 1014 at the Piedmont Hotel in Atlanta (the defendant here) where his boss, Mr. Brinson, was engaged in a telephone conversation with a customer; that Mr. Brinson asked him to take the telephone and talk with said customer, taking down various information and 'I went to the telephone and started listing commodities pertaining to the various movements we had, we were discussing them; and this was all very close work, and I was writing down destinations, and I got tired, I was giving out, and I was holding the book in my left hand and writing with my right hand, and I sat down, and when I did the chair wobbled down, and I was pushed, depending on the chair to catch me and it fell and hit me in the back.' He further testified that he saw the chair before but had never sat in it; that the shock of the fall was so terrific that he could not finish the telephone conversation and that since the accident he has suffered much pain, loss of sleep, loss of weight, and has been partially disabled, must wear a brace and has not been able to function fully in his job, causing loss of commissions. On cross-examination he testified substantially that the next day he examined the chair, picked it up and looked at it and found it to be wobbly. He did not rembember whether it was broken or bent. On redirect examination he testified substantially that the chair looked similar to the exhibit chair and when he observed the chair the day after the accident it appeared 'more or less tilted toward me.' When asked if it was the same chair or not, witness replied, 'As far as I could see, I was talking over the phone, and I just saw the chair behind me, and I just sat down before I thought.'

Mr. Kilgore, a witness for the plaintiff, testified substantially that he saw the chair in the room the next day; that he had examined it and found it weak; that it looked very much like the exhibit chair, though not as strong.

A witness for the defendant, Mr. Bland, manager of the Piedmont Hotel at the time of the accident, testified substantially that he first learned of Mr. Day's accident approximately three weeks later, at which time he went up to room 1014, examined every piece of furniture and found nothing wrong; that the exhibit chair was in the room and is in the same condition as it was when he found it on the day three weeks after the plaintiff's accident and that nothing had been done to it. On cross-examination he testified substantially that the procedure in the hotel is to have their inspectress check the rooms; that she checks about 200 rooms, does not sit in the chairs, and relies on maids to tell of any needed repairs other than obvious ones, such as loose parts on chairs. Counsel for the plaintiff said at this point that when they were talking with the manager about the accident they were not sure at the time whether it was a metal chair or a wooden chair. Counsel asked the manager if he could swear that no one tightened up the chair between the time the plaintiff was injured and the incident was reported to him three weeks later. Witness answered, 'I could.'

Mrs. Mamie Dean, inspectress at the Piedmont Hotel, a witness for the defendant, testified substantially that she was certain the exhibit chair came out of room 1014 and had been there ever since she had been there, some three years. On crossexamination she testified substantially that not a piece of furniture had been repaired in the hotel going on three years she has been there except maybe a split bed rail; that maybe arms of chairs tightened but never legs to her knowledge.

The plaintiff's employer, Mr. Brinson, testified on cross-examination substantially as follows: that on the day of the plaintiff's accident he had answered the telephone in the hotel room and was talking with a Mr. Morrison, an old acquaintance and customer of his firm. After extending greetings he got into the matter of a quotation. They were very anxious to secure Mr. Morrison's movement of traffic and when he got into the details he said, 'Well, Mr. Day had better take down the pertinent information, as he's going to have to handle with the Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference to publish in the...