Kentucky Hotel Co. v. Camp

• Decision Date: 09 May 1895
• Citation: 30 S.W. 1010,97 Ky. 424
• Parties: KENTUCKY HOTEL CO. v. CAMP.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

30 S.W. 1010

97 Ky. 424

KENTUCKY HOTEL CO. v. CAMP.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 9, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Willie H. Camp against the Kentucky Hotel Company for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

O'Neal Phelps, Pryor & Selligman and Bullitt & Shields, for appellant.

J. T A. Baker, R. C. Davis, and Matt. O'Doherty, for appellee.

GRACE J.

This appeal by appellant is from a judgment of the Jefferson circuit court in favor of appellee for the sum of $500 recovered for injuries sustained by Willie Camp while being carried in the elevator of appellant, at the Willard Hotel then operated by this company. The injury occurred in November, 1891. This suit has been twice tried, the first trial resulting in a verdict for the defendant. This was set aside, and a new trial granted by the court, and this is the first complaint of appellant. The evidence tended to show that this elevator was a heavy one, having a double department,-one for passengers, and the other for freight,-and that it was operated by two boys, Frank Jackson and Claud Smith, by turns; that this accident happened near the change of the boys; that Claud Smith, the younger and smaller boy, and less experienced, was operating the elevator, and that Frank Jackson was in the elevator waiting for his watch to come on; that the little boy, Willie Camp, had just gone up with his father, but, forgetting some cigar boxes he wanted, had gone back, got his boxes, and was going up to his floor again; that when getting in the elevator he took his seat on one of the benches, as customary, but that Frank Jackson said he would draw for the boy a picture, and, not wanting Camp to see it until it was finished, told him to sit down on the floor, which the boy did, as he says, about the middle of the elevator,-meaning, as we gather it from the evidence, about the middle from side to side, but immediately in front of the door, and manifestly not a great way from it, and that while thus sitting a moment Jackson called his attention, and in turning on the floor towards Jackson his foot was caught between the elevator at the door and the joists of one of the floors, as it ascended; that his heel was mashed, the small bone of his leg was broken, and the leaders strained and shortened, and his leg for some distance up towards his knee bruised and injured. It appears that his injuries were serious and painful; that his limb was placed in a plaster-paris bandage for some weeks, and after that in a sole-leather bandage; that, finally getting out of bed, even at the time of the second trial his leg still hurt him, not continuously, but when he walked any considerable distance on it. The physician who attended him expressed the opinion that the injury had materially injured the boy's nervous system and impaired his general health. Some testimony was offered showing the smaller boy, Smith, was too light to operate this elevator with perfect control; that occasionally he had to jump up, seize the rope with his hands, and remains suspended by it, though the evidence shows the elevator was at the time stopped in a reasonably short distance after the little boy Camp cried out. The charge in the petition was that the two boys, Jackson and Smith, were unfit to operate this elevator with safety, and that the appellant company was guilty of negligence in employing and in retaining them for this work, and that they (the boys) were guilty of negligence in operating the elevator, whereby plaintiff was injured. Camp was at the time of the injury less than seven years old. This was substantially the evidence on both trials. It may be added, however, that the boys Smith and Jackson had been warned by the mother of the boy Camp to be careful, and to make him sit on the seats when in the elevator. On the conclusion of the evidence for plaintiff on each trial, appellant moved the court for a peremptory instruction. This was refused each time.

The first verdict was set...