Glass v. Colman

• Decision Date: 08 June 1896
• Citation: 45 P. 310,14 Wash. 635
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GLASS v. COLMAN ET AL.

45 P. 310

14 Wash. 635

GLASS v. COLMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 8, 1896

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Action by Daniel B. Glass against J. M. Colman and Agnes Colman. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

P. C. Ellsworth, Geo. R. McKay, and Relfe &amp McCutcheon, for appellant.

Struve Allen, Hughes & McMicken, for respondents.

HOYT C.J.

This appeal was from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendants upon a motion for a nonsuit made at the close of plaintiff's case, and the action of the court in sustaining the motion for a nonsuit and rendering the judgment must, in our opinion, be affirmed-First, for the reason that the defects in the construction of the hotel which it is alleged were the cause of the injury to the plaintiff, were not those for which the defendants were responsible; and, second, for the reason that the defects, if any, in such construction, were so brought home to the knowledge of the plaintiff that in occupying a room in the hotel he accepted the risk growing out of such defect of construction. There was no substantial controversy as to the circumstances under which the hotel was constructed, nor as to its occupancy at the time the plaintiff was injured. From such evidence it was made sufficiently to appear that, at the time the building was originally leased by the respondents to one Stevens, the upper story had not been divided into rooms and fitted up as an hotel; that under the lease said Stevens had the right to fit up such upper story, and occupy it for hotel purposes that in so doing he was to provide all the material and labor necessary for the purpose, and it was agreed that the material so provided should not become the property of the landlord, but should remain that of the lessee, with the right at the end of the term to remove it from the building; that, by mutual arrangement of all the parties interested, the rights of said Stevens as lessee of the building had become vested in the one who was occupying and conducting it as an hotel at the time plaintiff was injured. There was nothing in the evidence which tended to show that the building itself was not properly constructed, or that it was in any way unsafe for the purpose for which it was designed, before the upper story thereof had been fitted up as an hotel by the lessee in pursuance of the agreement above referred to. On the contrary, it clearly appeared from the evidence that the building was so constructed as...