Hansen v. State Bank Bldg. Co.

• Citation: 100 Iowa 672,69 N.W. 1020
• Parties: HANSEN v. STATE BANK BLDG. CO.
• Decision Date: 25 January 1897
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

100 Iowa 672

69 N.W. 1020

HANSEN

v.STATE BANK BLDG. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 25, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Woodbury county; George W. Wakefield, Judge.

The defendant company is the owner of what is known as the “Toy Building” in Sioux City, Iowa. In that building was the office of Bradstreet Company Commercial Agency, and Albert Hansen was in its employ about the 18th day of March, 1892. The office of the agency was on the third floor of the building, and in the building were two elevators, known as the east and the west elevator, respectively. On the 18th day of March, 1892, Albert Hansen, for whom the action is maintained, being then a minor, 18 years of age, entered the building on the lower floor, being on his way to the agency, and rang the bell for the west elevator, and, after waiting a short time, and it did not appear, he discovered the door of the east elevator ajar, but with no one in attendance. He stepped in, and himself ran it to the third floor, where he stopped it, and, leaving the door partly open so he could use it to go down, he went into the office, and got some reports for delivery, and came back, and as he stepped into the elevator, or was partly in, it started up, and he was carried nearly to the fourth floor, and was in some manner crowded out of the elevator, and fell some 35 feet or more, to the bottom of the elevator pit, and was so injured that his lower limbs and the lower part of his body are paralyzed. This action is to recover the damage sustained, on the ground of the defendant's negligence in permitting the elevator to be out of repair. The petition shows that the operation of the elevator by Hansen was by license or permission of the defendant, and states facts constituting negligence in keeping it in unsuitable condition for such use, and avers diligence on the part of Hansen. The answer denies the averments as to both the license and the diligence on the part of Hansen. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the court, on motion of defendant, directed a verdict for it, and from a judgment thereon the plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.Wright & Hubbard and Lynn & Foley, for appellant.

M. J. Sweeley and Lewis & Beardsley, for appellee.

GRANGER, J.

It seems to be thought in argument that the court, in directing a verdict, based its ruling on the fact of contributory negligence. The excuse urged for Hansen's attempt to operate the elevator himself is the fact that he had many times before done so, and that others, aside from those assigned to that duty, had been in the habit of so doing. Both elevators were not used for passengers, except that at times the janitor of the building would, at noon, use the east one for that purpose. The west elevator was the one generally in use for passengers, and two boys were employed for that purpose, one for day service, and the other at night. We cannot state how Hansen came to operate the elevator himself more concisely than to quote a part of his testimony, as follows: “Q. Now, what occasion had you to run the elevator before? A. I run the elevator just this way: Whenever the other elevator was not there, I would get in this one, and run it. Whenever I came in, and did not find the other elevator in its position, and did not want to wait, I used the one standing there. I knew that there was a stairway there, and nothing to prevent me from using it. I had seen the janitor use the elevator. I did not know whether it was his duty to run it when the elevator boy was not there or not. I saw him use it in connection with the work. The elevator was not in use for passenger work. Sometimes, when the elevator boy was not there, he used the elevator for the convenience of the passengers. I saw Max Foster run it. He was...