Kapphahn v. Martin Hotel Co.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | 45575. |
| Citation | 298 N.W. 901,230 Iowa 739 |
| Parties | KAPPHAHN v. MARTIN HOTEL CO. et al |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; A. O. Wakefield, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment on a verdict directed by the court. The judgment is affirmed.
Lester C. Davidson and Robert J. O'Connor, both of Sioux City for appellant.
Sifford & Wadden, of Sioux City, for appellees.
The plaintiff is a boy about two years old, and this action was brought in his behalf by his father. He alleged in his petition that: the defending corporations operate the " Martin Hotel" at the corner of 4th and Pierce Streets in Sioux City, a busy business corner where many people continually pass by on the adjacent sidewalks; about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of July 29, 1940, a screen fell from the window of room 424 of the hotel and struck and injured the plaintiff while being carried along the sidewalk by his father; a parade was due along the street and one of the hotel guests in room 424, desiring to look down 4th Street to see if the parade was coming, raised the screen to look out and it fell from his hands to the sidewalk; the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence; the proximate cause of the falling of the screen and the injury to plaintiff was the negligence of the defendants in the following particulars:
" a. In constructing the guides that held the screen, in such a manner that they released the screen when an attempt was made to raise said screen b. In maintaining said screen guides and in permitting them to remain in such
a condition that they released said screen when an attempt was made to raise it.
c. In failing to install handles at the base of said screen so that said screen could be held when it was released by the screen guides.
d. In failing to install a pin, screw, or similar device to prevent the screen from being raised to a point where said guides would release it.
e. In failing to place somewhere near the window or in the room, a sign warning that the screen should not be raised without caution because of the danger that said screen would be released by the screen guides.
f. In failing to properly fasten said screen to the building.
g. In failing to install some simple safety device such as a rope connecting said screen to the building" ; the plaintiff was severely and permanently injured.
The Eppley Hotels Co. filed answer denying the allegations of the petition. The Martin Hotel Co. filed separate answer admitting that " it is a corporation, and that it is operating a hotel at the corner of 4th and Pierce Streets in Sioux City under the name of the Martin Hotel," and denying all other allegations of the petition.
There is little conflict in the evidence. It appears quite conclusively that the plaintiff was injured by a screen falling as alleged; this particular screen was placed on the window in room 424, between April 15th and May 1, 1940, by the regular carpenter of the hotel, who had been thus employed for 20 years, and one of whose duties was to keep the screens in good condition, and to put them on in the spring, and take them off in the fall of the year; all of the screens on the first six floors along the street are constructed the same, and are attached to the windows in the same manner; the window in room 424 is 44 feet above the street, and one standing inside the window has a plain view of the street below without raising the window; this window is 54 inches wide and is 67 inches from top to bottom; the lower sash is 38 inches high, and the upper sash is 29 1/4 inches high; the screen covers the lower sash only and it is 53 inches wide and 38 inches high; the frame of the screen is of wood, and along the entire length of each upright of the screen on the face next to the window frame is a groove in the wood 9/16ths of an inch deep; each groove engages and slides up and down on and along a hard oak wood tongue, a quarter of an inch thick and a half inch deep; each tongue is firmly fastened to the side of the window frame, and fits into the groove approximately a half inch; on the left window frame, to one facing the window, the tongue is 39 inches long; on the opposite, or right hand window frame, the tongue is approximately 29 inches long, and, the top of the tongue is approximately 38 inches below the top of the window frame; on the top surface of the bottom dimension of the frame of the screen, are two metal fixtures, or handles, into which the fingers of each hand may be inserted to raise the screen; each of these handles is near the foot of each upright of the screen frame; when the screen is down and the tongues are engaged in the grooves, it is firmly fastened, and cannot be blown, or forced in or out or be displaced in any way unless the force is great enough to break the frame work of the screen or one or both of the tongues; in order to take it out, the screen must be raised approximately 30 inches to the top of the window frame; this raises the right-hand groove a quarter of an inch above the tongue on that side and disengages the tongue and groove on that side; when the top of the frame of the screen reaches the top of the window frame, approximately 9 inches at the bottom of the left groove is engaged with the tongue on that side; the right-hand upright of the frame of the screen is flush against that side of the window frame; when the screen is in position, there is very little end play-approximately 1/16th of an inch; when the screen is raised to the top of the window and the right side is pushed outward, the left side becomes fully disengaged and the screen is free from the window frame; when the screen is so raised, there is only a quarter inch of clearance above the tongue on the right side; the screen is affixed in this manner so that it can be taken out and replaced with the change in seasons, and so the windows can be washed, or be raised for the convenience or need of the occupant of the room; the screen in all its parts and the tongues were in what a witness described as " No. 1 condition" ; the lower window does not push up the whole distance of 38 inches; the screen could not be raised high enough to permit it to be removed by keeping hold of the handles, because the lower sash could not be raised that high, and would prevent the screen from being raised higher in that manner; July 29, 1940, was a hot day; the entire fourth floor, including room 424, was air-conditioned, and on the window in that room and the other rooms was a sign reading: " To obtain best results from air-conditioning please keep doors and windows closed" ; the guest, Ballard, who raised the window and the screen to look for the parade, had been an occupant of a room on the sixth floor for some weeks; on July 29, 1940, he was in a business conference in room 424; the same type of screen was used in his room; he knew that tongues on each side fitted into the grooves, but had never raised the screen in his room, and did not know that the tongue on the right side was lower than the left one; his only purpose in raising the window and screen was to stick his head and shoulders out of the window underneath the screen to see if the parade was coming; the guests of the hotel have at times raised the screens to throw out paper and other light articles, and sometimes, in the non-air-conditioned rooms, would raise the screens a little. The foregoing statement covers quite fully the testimony material to the questions before us. The matters of record showing the relation of the defendants to the building, is the answer of the Martin Hotel Company that it operates the hotel, and the testimony of the manager of the Eppley Hotels Company that it operated the hotel. The capacity in which either operated the hotel, whether as owner, lessee, or in some other relation, does not appear.
At the close of plaintiff's testimony, the defendants moved for a directed verdict in their favor. The grounds of the motion were alleged in fifteen separate paragraphs. The court sustained the motion generally.
The errors assigned are: sustaining the motion to direct; requesting the foreman of the jury to sign the verdict; and, entering judgment dismissing plaintiff's action.
I.
The motion for a directed verdict was rightly sustained if any ground thereof was good. Phillips v. Briggs, 215 Iowa 461, 465, 245 N.W. 720; Furgason v. Bellaire, 197 Iowa 277, 283, 197 N.W. 13. Among the grounds of the motion are the following, in substance: there is no competent evidence upon which the case could be submitted to the jury; plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden of proof and has failed to prove any of the grounds of negligence alleged; there is no competent evidence of defective construction, inspection, or maintenance; the evidence shows that the screen did not fall through an act or omission on the part of either defendant, but did fall through the independent negligent act of a third person, which was the proximate cause of the injury; there is no competent evidence to sustain a verdict based on an obligation of either defendant to maintain the exterior of the building, or that either had anything to do with the original construction of the building and of the screens, screen guides, or tongues; or was under obligation to maintain them; and, that the evidence affirmatively shows the screen was fastened in a reasonably prudent manner and so maintained.
Does the record establish negligence as alleged by plaintiff? If the answer is nay, that is an end of the case. Grounds of negligence alleged in the petition, and lettered (d) and (g) need be given no further consideration. The first, alleged failure to install a pin, screw, etc., to...
To continue reading
Request your trial