Hotel Richmond v. Wilkinson
| Decision Date | 12 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | 30935. |
| Citation | 35 S.E.2d 536,73 Ga.App. 36 |
| Parties | HOTEL RICHMOND, Inc., v. WILKINSON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
An innkeeper is not an insurer of his guests' safety. The duty of an innkeeper is to exercise ordinary care in furnishing to his patrons such premises as are reasonably safe. It is likewise the duty of the patrons to exercise ordinary care for their own safety.
M A. Wilkinson, Jr., sued Hotel Richmond, Inc., and recovered damages for an alleged injury received as a paying guest of the defendant. In the early evening, it was alleged the plaintiff, after being assigned to his room, took a bath dressed, left the hotel, had dinner, attended a picture show and returned to the hotel at about 11 o'clock; he retired and, after doing so, heard water dripping from the faucet in the bathroom. He arose, went to the bathtub, leaned over it opened and closed the cold water faucet with his right hand and undertook to open and close the hot water faucet with his left hand. He opened and closed both faucets in the normal way, with only the necessary pressure to close a properly functioning faucet. In attempting to close the hot water faucet, the porcelain or china handle crushed in his left hand and severely injured him.
The alleged acts of negligence were (a) in having in the hostelry a faucet that would break in turning off the water; (b) in not inspecting the faucet to ascertain that it was in proper condition; (c) in not providing guests with safe facilities for their use; (d) in not repairing or replacing the faucets when it was discovered or would have been discovered by ordinary care and diligence to be defective.
The defendant answered, denying negligence on its part, and further alleging that the negligence of the plaintiff caused his injuries, if any, in substantially the following particulars: (a) in failing to report to the proper officer of the defendant company that he was unable to turn off the hot water without applying such pressure as he apparently considered necessary at the time of the alleged injury; (b) in undertaking to turn off the hot water in the manner alleged in the petition by applying more pressure than would ordinarily be necessary, and in applying such excessive pressure failing to exercise ordinary care and prudence on his part; (c) in failing to exercise ordinary precaution in ascertaining whether or not the said porcelain handle was in such a condition by showing cracks therein, or otherwise that it would break by the mere act of turning off the water, the answer further pleaded: that these negligent acts of the plaintiff were the sole proximate cause of his alleged injuries; that, even though the defendant was negligent, which it expressly denied, the plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by a failure to exercise ordinary care and diligence to avoid the consequences of the defendant's negligence; that, if the defendant was guilty of negligence as alleged by the plaintiff, which was expressly denied, still the plaintiff was negligent in the particulars above specified, and the plaintiff's negligence was equal to or greater than the negligence of the defendant; and further that, if the defendant was guilty of any one or more of the acts of negligence, which was expressly denied, the negligence of the plaintiff, as specified, would diminish any damages to which he might be entitled, as alleged in his petition, and any recovery of the plaintiff should be diminished in proportion to the comparative acts of negligence of the defendant; but that the plea of the defendant not be construed as any admission of any liability to the plaintiff, which the defendant expressly denied.
The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was filed by the defendant on the general grounds and a special ground, added by amendment. This special ground is but an amplification of one phase of the general grounds. The motion was denied and the defendant assigns error.
Aside from the evidence touching the injuries, which the plaintiff is alleged to have received, and their extent, the evidence shows substantially: according to the plaintiff's testimony to sustain the allegations of his petition, particularly that he used no more pressure than was usually normal to open and close the faucet; that he did not throw any unusual weight against the porcelain handle; that he used no more pressure than he usually did to open and close faucets; that it was a tile bathroom, and he stood on the tile, reaching across the width of the tub, leaning somewhat forward; and that he did not have complete control of his balance when he pressed the handle. On cross-examination, he testified: that the light was on when he went to the bathroom to turn off the water; the faucet was about two feet from the floor; the plaintiff got a full grip on it, and he did not use a finger grip. The faucet was on down-stroke when it broke. The plaintiff did not lose his balance and fall over. He did not notice whether or not there were any cracks on the handle, and did not know if he would have seen them if there had been. He did not notice anything on it. The handle was made of china, a brittle substance. It was porcelain or china. He did not know how much pressure would break it, but assumed that too much pressure would break it. He did not recall that the water was running when he got from under the shower early in the evening. It was earlier in the day and the plaintiff was not as likely to notice it then as he was later on at night when things were quiet. The plaintiff made no effort to report to the hotel that the water was running. So far as he knew it had not been turned off and he tried to turn it off; and so far as he knew the fixture was in perfectly good condition. He was not a mechanic and not left-handed. The plaintiff did not recall that there was a bath mat. He thought he probably hung it up. If he was leaning over in a close place, he would be out of balance. If he had been depending on the handle of the faucet to keep his balance, he would have gone over when the handle broke.
A doctor testified for the plaintiff: that the wound was about a half inch deep; and that its depth indicated considerable pressure on the object that caused the wound. There was testimony for the defendant as follows: The house physician testified that he was called to see the plaintiff at about 11:30 p.m., and saw the wound; that the plaintiff stated that he was cutting off the water above the tub and the handle broke and cut his hand; that the wound was about an inch in length and approximately a half inch deep; that the witness had been an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irwin v. Torbert
... ... was a suit in equity by O. B. Torbert against Mrs. Annie Lee ... Irwin, and the Winecoff Hotel Company, a partnership composed ... of A. F. Geele, Sr., A. F. Geele, Jr., and R. E ... Holloman v. Henry Grady Hotel Company, 42 ... Ga.App. 347, 156 S.E. 275; Hotel Richmond, Inc., v ... Wilkinson, 73 Ga.App. 36, 35 S.E.2d 536. There can be no ... case of the negligent ... ...
-
Sarno v. Hoffman
...of an innkeeper is to use ordinary care and diligence to furnish the guest with reasonably safe accommodations. Hotel Richmond v. Wilkinson, 73 Ga.App. 36, 35 S.E.2d 536. This duty extends to appliances, and where it is shown that because of a defect in the plumbing or shower fixtures a gue......
-
Hillinghorst v. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc.
...duty to exercise ordinary care to afford [guests] premises that are reasonably safe for use and occupancy.' Hotel Richmond, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 73 Ga.App. 36, 41, 35 S.E.2d 536, 539; Holloman v. Henry Grady Hotel Co., 42 Ga.App. 347, 156 S.E. 275; Newton v. Candace, Inc., 94 Ga.App. 385(2), ......
-
Gary Hotel Courts, Inc. v. Perry, 56479
...are reasonably safe for use and occupancy. Holloman v. Henry Grady Hotel Co., 42 Ga.App. 347, 348, 156 S.E. 275; Hotel Richmond, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 73 Ga.App. 36, 35 S.E.2d 536. Plaintiff presented evidence that he was injured when he sat in defendant's chair in defendant's motel room and t......