Doherty v. Arcade Hotel
| Decision Date | 16 February 1943 |
| Citation | 170 Or. 374,134 P.2d 118 |
| Parties | DOHERTY <I>v.</I> ARCADE HOTEL |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Innkeeper's liability for injury to guest due to condition of
plumbing, note, 118 A.L.R. 1103. See, also, 28 Am. Jur. 581
32 C.J., Inkeepers, § 69
Before KELLY, Chief Justice, and BELT, ROSSMAN, BAILEY, LUSK and BRAND, Associate Justices.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Klamath County.
Action by Jack Doherty against Arcade Hotel for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff while a paying guest at defendant's hotel. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
REVERSED.
William Kuykendall, of Klamath Falls (D.V. Kuykendall, of Klamath Falls, on the brief), for appellant.
U.S. Balentine, of Klamath Falls, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, based upon a verdict. The defendant admits that on July 6, 1940, that being the date of the plaintiff's injury, it "was engaged in the hotel business and owned and operated the hotel known as the Arcade Hotel in Klamath Falls, Oregon." It also admits that on the day just mentioned "the plaintiff occupied a room in defendant's hotel." The evidence warrants a finding that he was there as a paying guest.
The appellant's brief presents only one assignment of error:
"The Court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict in favor of defendant-appellant."
One of the plumbing fixtures in the plaintiff's room was a washbowl served with hot and cold water. The handles of the faucets were made of porcelain. The complaint says that they were installed eighteen years ago. July 6, 1940, while the plaintiff was shaving himself in his room, he undertook to shut off the hot water and then the following, according to his testimony, happened:
"I put my hand over against it (the porcelain handle of the hot water faucet) like that to shut it off a little bit and it broke with a sharp point."
He swore that the broken porcelain had sharp edges which cut his hand deeply. The complaint charges that the defendant neglected its duty to the plaintiff in the following particulars:
"In failing and neglecting to furnish a safe place for its guests and to this plaintiff * * * in maintaining porcelain faucet handles * * * in failing to inspect said room and said porcelain faucet handles."
The answer denies all averments which charge negligence. It alleges that the faucet handles in its hotel were in perfect condition, that they were daily inspected, and that the shattering of the one which injured the plaintiff was due to the fact that he, as "a man of strong and powerful physique, * * * struck the faucet handle with the base of his hand in such a manner as to shatter the faucet handle." Those averments are denied by the reply.
Uncontradicted evidence indicates that maids in the defendant's employ daily entered the plaintiff's room, made the bed, swept the floor, cleaned the washbowl and tidied up the room. In cleaning the washbowl they turned on the water and thus used the porcelain handles. The two maids who performed this service swore that they observed no defect in the handles. The plaintiff, who had occupied the room for one month and fourteen days before the accident, had observed nothing wrong with the handles.
Floyd Waters, a plumbing contractor in Klamath Falls, as a witness for the plaintiff, was asked, and answered, as follows:
He estimated that "probably 30 or 40 per cent" of all faucets in Klamath Falls had porcelain handles.
J.H. Dyer, another plumber contractor in Klamath Falls, as a witness for the plaintiff, was asked, and answered, as follows:
He swore that even in new handles there is "a tendency for them to break."
When asked to compare the number of porcelain handles in use June 6, 1940, (date of plaintiff's injury) with all other types, he replied: "I should judge something about 30 per cent or something like that; 35 or 40."
According to those witnesses, the porcelain is fitted over a core of brass and is held to the latter by cement.
Arthur B. Keenan, a plumbing contractor, as a witness for the defendant, estimated that four-fifths of all the faucets in Klamath Falls had porcelain handles. J.E. Friesen, another plumbing contractor also called by the defendant, thought that the number of porcelain handles in Klamath Falls was 50 per cent of all those in use. Both Keenan and Friesen swore that porcelain handles were still available upon the market. Friesen, referring to porcelain handles, testified: "They are coming back now on account of the scarcity of metal." Keenan accounted for the popularity of metal handles by saying: "Chrome plate looks better." Upon cross-examination, he was asked, and answered, as follows:
* * * * * *
Q. Do you know it is a fact that a great many people were injured by using that handle?
"A. I wouldn't say there is a great many people; there are a few people. If the handle is not checked or cracked, I would say there was no danger to it. Like the plates on your table, — if there are checks formed in them, in that condition they are dangerous.
* * * * * *
I have been here fifteen years and some I installed when I came here are still in perfectly good condition.
Friesen knew of no one who had been injured by the breaking of a porcelain handle.
The testimony of the four plumbing contractors indicates that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. United States
... ... Also Doherty v. Arcade Hotel, 170 Or. 374, 134 P.2d 118 ... 20 Budd v. United Carriage ... ...
-
Gow v. Multnomah Hotel
... ... Defendants cite: Lee v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or. 600, 114 P.2d 136; Starberg v. Olbekson, 169 Or. 369, 129 P.2d 62; Doherty v. Arcade Hotel, 170 Or. 374, 134 P.2d 118, 121. From defendants' brief we quote the following: '* * * Appellant cites these same cases in his ... ...
-
Chase v. Beard
... ... Fritzie Hotels, Inc., 44 Cal.2d 416, 282 P.2d 890; Alsup v. Saratoga Hotel, Inc., 71 Idaho 229, 229 P.2d 985; Doherty v. Arcade Hotel, 170 Or. 374, 134 P.2d 118; Crockett v ... ...
-
Dunning v. Northwestern Electric Co.
... ... Two recent instances are Asheim v. Fahey, 170 Or. 330, 133 P.2d 246, and Doherty v. Arcade Hotel, 170 Or. 374, 134 P.2d 118. An occasional relaxation of the requirement has been ... ...