Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co.
| Citation | 26 S.E.2d 380,69 Ga.App. 584 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | 30125. |
| Parties | HIGGINS v. OTIS ELEVATOR CO. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Louise Higgins brought this action against the Otis Elevator Company for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when she was forced to jump from a burning building. The petition alleged substantially: 1. That the defendant is a corporation having an office, with a general agent in charge and place of doing business in Fulton County Georgia, and is and was so engaged on November 19, 1936; 2. That defendant has injured and damaged your petitioner in the sum of $2,900; 3. That for many years previous to and including November 19, 1936, Mrs. Susan Calhoun Oglesby and Mrs. Harriet Calhoun Whitham were the owners of an undivided life estate in the land and building known as 84 Broad Street in the City of Atlanta; 4. That the Cable Company, the Cable Piano Company and the Atlanta Conservatory of Music held leases on November 19, 1936, on various portions of the building described in the foregoing paragraph; 6. That the Otis Elevator Company a number of years ago manufactured furnished and installed two elevators in the store and office building described in this petition, which elevators ran from the basement to the top floor thereof, and which building was some five or six stories in height used as a passenger and freight elevator by the various lessees, occupants customers, patrons and guests of said lessees and occupants and by plaintiff in particular, plaintiff having been in the habit of coming in and out of said building in the course of her usual vacation over a period of years immediately preceding the fire set out in this petition, and that in about the year 1932 the Otis Elevator Company entered into a contract of employment, copy of which is not in the possession of the plaintiff, but is in the possession of the defendant, Otis Elevator Company; it being further alleged that the Otis Elevator Company was under legal duty to properly and sufficiently inspect and repair the two elevators in said building and their housing, hoisting and all other apparatus and parts and appurtenances of all of the elevators in said building and immediately report to the owners, life tenants, lessees and invitees of said building, all defects and faulty condition of the installation, condition and construction and all dangerous hazards in connection with all of said elevators in said building, their electrical housing, hangars, motors, electrical wiring, runners, and all other contraptions in connection with said elevators, and that the Otis Elevator Company was under further legal duty to specifically plaintiff, to post notices and warnings, and to hold up, suspend, forbid and warn patrons, including plaintiff, of and from the use of said elevators while the same were in dangerous and unsafe condition that they were in at the time of the fire, as set out in this petition, it being alleged by plaintiff that said elevators, their housing, hoisting, motors, electrical and other operating apparatus and appurtenances at the time of said purported inspection by defendant and immediately preceding and at the time of said fire causing said elevators to be in a faulty, unsafe and dangerous condition, and unfit for safe travel thereon by plaintiff at the time of said fire it being further alleged that said elevators, and their various housing, hoisting, hangars, runners, motors, electrical and other operating apparatus did not measure up to the requirements of the latest issue of the safety code for elevators prepared by the American Standards Association, which regulations were the legal code of the City of Atlanta, approved February 3, 1933, reading as follows: but that defendant negligently and carelessly failed to properly inspect or repair or to warn plaintiff of the danger in said elevators and their appurtenances thereto although it is alleged that defendant acting by and through its authorized agents and employees carelessly and negligently caused said fire complained of in this petition to originate in said elevators and in all of those portions of all elevator apparatus and appurtenances thereto as set out in this petition, nor to warn plaintiff thereof, nor of the fire hazard caused thereby, nor of the fire hazard of remaining in said building created by the unsafe condition of said elevators and appurtenances thereof, as alleged in this petition, nor the fire hazard caused by all of the alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of the defendant acting by and through its authorized agents all of which it is alleged was apparent to defendant, and defendant acting by and through its duly authorized agents and employees, or could and should have been apparent had defendant's agents and employees been in the exercise of ordinary care, skill and diligence required of defendant under circumstances set out in this petition, all of which acts of omission and commission of defendant acting by and through its duly authorized agents and employees being charged as a violation of the duties defendant owed to plaintiff, and all of which is charged as negligence on the part of defendant, and was the direct and proximate cause of said fire, and of plaintiff's injuries, suffering, loss and damages. That Atlanta Conservatory of Music occupied the fifth floor and also utilized two studios on the sixth floor of said building, with and under which corporation your petitioner was studying, practicing and attending classes,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. American Cas. Co.
... ... As we will see, it may ... In Southeastern Elevator Company v. Phelps, 70 Ga.App. 331, 28 S.E.2d 85, plaintiff brought suit against an elevator company ... This holding was consistent with the earlier ruling in Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co., 69 Ga.App. 584, 26 S.E.2d 380, recognizing (again, with respect to an alleged ... ...
-
Williams v. Otis Elevator Co.
... ... Such principle finds support in reason, justice and precedent: Dahms v. General Elevator Co., 214 Cal. 733, 7 P.2d 1013 [1932]; ... Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co., 69 Ga.App. 584, 26 S.E.2d 380 [1943]; Koch v. Otis Elevator Co., 10 App.Div.2d 464, 200 N.Y.S.2d 700 [1960]; Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 234 N.C. 512, 67 S.E.2d 492 [1951]; Durham v. Warner Elevator Mfg. Co., 166 Ohio St. 31, 139 N.E.2d 10 [1956]; Wolfmeyer v. Otis ... ...
-
Simon v. Omaha Public Power Dist.
... ... Gaines, Spittler, Neely, Otis & Moore, Joseph R. Moore, Omaha, for Natkin & Co ... Heard before WHITE, C.J., ... Co., 102 N.H. 530, 163 A.2d 564; Annotation, 6 A.L.R.2d 284. Also, see the elevator inspection cases where breach of a duty of inspection gives rise to liability for injury to third ... 7, 63 A.2d 19; Dahms v. General Elevator Co., 214 Cal. 733, 7 P.2d 1013; Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co., 69 Ga.App. 584, 26 S.E.2d 380; Sheridan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 3 ... ...
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Clark
... ... by a third person where the owner of the building relies on the other's report that the elevator is in good condition, and failure of a crossing guard employed by the railroad to warn of ng trains. See, e. g., Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co., 69 Ga.App. 584, 26 S.E.2d 380 (1943); Chumley v. L. & N. R. Co., 45 Ga.App ... ...