Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 14120.
Docket Nº | 14120. |
Citation | 102 Colo. 8, 76 P.2d 431 |
Case Date | January 24, 1938 |
Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
76 P.2d 431
102 Colo. 8
HOOKER
v.
ROUTT REALTY CO.
No. 14120.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
January 24, 1938
Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1938.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Charles C. Sackmann, Judge.
Action by Allis L. Hooker against the Routt Realty Company for injuries sustained when plaintiff fell into a stairway on defendant's premises. To review a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff's testimony, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
YOUNG, KNOUS, and HOLLAND, JJ., dissenting.
Van Cise, Robinson & Charlton and Kenneth W. Robinson, all of Denver (John [76 P.2d 432] L. Kivlan, of Denver, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
[102 Colo. 9] McComb & Green, Walter E. Schwed, Mark H. Harrington, and H. Shields Mason, all of Denver, for defendant in error.
BAKKE, Justice.
Action for damages for $60,000 for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff as a result of falling into a cement stairway on premises of defendant. To a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff's testimony, she assigns error. The parties will be designated as they appeared in the court below.
The accident happened on the night of December 27, 1934, about 9:30 p. m., when plaintiff was attempting to make a social call on a sick friend, James Stephens, living at the Haddon Hall Hotel, located at 618 Fourteenth street, in the city of Denver. The hotel faces on Fourteenth street, extending a half block thereon from Welton street to the alley between Welton and California streets. Behind the hotel, facing on Welton, are several terraces, and, between the rear of the terraces and the rear of the hotel, there is a cement-surfaced court about 18 feet wide and 86 feet long, ingress to which from Welton street is through a passageway about 4 feet wide at the rear of the hotel, between the hotel and the terraces facing on Welton. The ingress to the court from the alley is about 20 feet wide. The terraces on Welton street, with their back doors opening onto the court, were occupied by small stores, and all were owned by the defendant realty company, which also owned the hotel. The property had been built about twenty-five years and the various tenants, and such part of the public as had occasion to transact business with any of them, used the ways of ingress above described.
In the northeastern corner of the large court, adjoining the hotel wall, was the cement stairway in question. [102 Colo. 10] There was no railing around it, but only a 4-inch ridge of cement. The stairway led to the basement of the hotel and was not used by the public, not was there any entrance other than this to the hotel from the court. Just a few feet from the stairway pit, directly in plaintiff's course, was an iron-covered coal dump and two large blocks of cement, the larger one being two feet square and one and seven tenths feet high; the smaller about half that size. The room in the hotel in which Stephens was sitting was on the first floor and directly over the stairway on the ell formed by this part of the hotel. Plaintiff had called on Stephens several times before, but always had used the main entrance of the hotel on Fourteenth street. On the rear wall of the hotel, at the entrance to a small passageway, was a sign reading, 'A. Spetnagel Tin Shop. Rear 1335,' with a finger pointing down the way by which the plaintiff entered the court. In some places the passageway is less than three feet wide due to abutting casements and a bay window.
On the night in question, plaintiff, while walking on Welton street, paused when she came to the passageway and looked toward Stephen's room which was lighted. She saw him sitting by the window, and, it occurring to her that she had a message for him, she walked through the passageway directly to his window. Apparently not seeing the stairway, she fell into it, suffering a fracture of the skull and other serious injuries which left her crippled for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, No. C--31
...was a trespasser and that a fire was not an attractive nuisance, affirmed the trial court's dismissal. In Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 76 P.2d 431 (1938), the plaintiff fell down an unlighted and [175 Colo. 546] unguarded stairway in a passageway leading to business premises own......
-
Trimble v. Spears, No. 40786
...that the defendant owed him a legal duty in the capacity in which he was acting at the time of the injury. Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 76 P.2d 431. * * * it is obvious that its purpose was for use as a means of escape from the apartment house in event of fire therein. There is ......
-
Lakeview Associates, Ltd. v. Maes, No. 94SC595
...at 594, 413 P.2d at 909; Mathias v. Denver Union Terminal Ry., 137 Colo. 224, 228, 323 P.2d 624, 626 (1958); Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 11, 76 P.2d 431, 432-33 (1938). Thus, an invitee's presence on land owned by another was regarded as serving the mutual purposes of the invit......
-
Rudolph v. Elder, 14313.
...on hotel premises technically is a trespasser, licensee or invitee. For this reason such authorities as Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 76 P.2d 431, and similar cases are wholly inapplicable to the case at bar. As has been mentioned plaintiff testified to an invitation by a bellboy......
-
Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, No. C--31
...was a trespasser and that a fire was not an attractive nuisance, affirmed the trial court's dismissal. In Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 76 P.2d 431 (1938), the plaintiff fell down an unlighted and [175 Colo. 546] unguarded stairway in a passageway leading to business premises own......
-
Trimble v. Spears, No. 40786
...that the defendant owed him a legal duty in the capacity in which he was acting at the time of the injury. Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 76 P.2d 431. * * * it is obvious that its purpose was for use as a means of escape from the apartment house in event of fire therein. There is ......
-
Lakeview Associates, Ltd. v. Maes, No. 94SC595
...at 594, 413 P.2d at 909; Mathias v. Denver Union Terminal Ry., 137 Colo. 224, 228, 323 P.2d 624, 626 (1958); Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 11, 76 P.2d 431, 432-33 (1938). Thus, an invitee's presence on land owned by another was regarded as serving the mutual purposes of the invit......
-
Rudolph v. Elder, 14313.
...on hotel premises technically is a trespasser, licensee or invitee. For this reason such authorities as Hooker v. Routt Realty Co., 102 Colo. 8, 76 P.2d 431, and similar cases are wholly inapplicable to the case at bar. As has been mentioned plaintiff testified to an invitation by a bellboy......