Ling v. Hosts Inc.
|14 January 1969
|164 N.W.2d 123
|Raymond G. LING, Appellee, v. HOSTS INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hotel Fort Des Moines, Appellant.
|Iowa Supreme Court
Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, Des Moines, for appellant.
Dickinson, Throckmorton, Parker, Mannheimer & Raife, Des Moines, for appellee.
Plaintiff Ling, a paying guest in defendant's hotel, recovered judgment on a jury verdict for personal injury from a fall in the hotel lobby. Defendant's appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of its negligence and correctness of the jury instructions as to the duty of care defendant owed plaintiff.
Alleged cause of the fall was defendant's negligence in failing to: (1) remove accumulated water from the marble floor at the place where plaintiff fell, and (2) warn him of its dangerous condition.
I. In considering the sufficiency of the evidence of defendant's negligence as against its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. This is the effect of Rule 344(f), par. 2 Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. Plaintiff arrived at Hotel Fort Des Moines in Des Moines between 9:15 and 9:30 on the evening of December 27, 1966 (just two years before this is written) after a plane trip from his home in Atlanta and a taxi ride from the Des Moines airport. Plaintiff testified:
Plaintiff further said he shook his feet and scuffed them to get the excess snow off; went through a second set of doors into the lobby, carrying his suitcase and suit bag; walked straight ahead on a rubber mat; he had stayed at the hotel several times and knew the personnel there; he smiled at the cashier; the bellman was evidently on another errand and not available to assist plaintiff; he stepped off the mat toward a coat rack on the marble floor to his left to leave his bag and suitcase before registering; after he took about one step off the mat plaintiff's feet went out from under him and he fell backward on his head.
Plaintiff further testified: 'I am positive I didn't have any ice or snow on my shoes because I scuffed my feet when I came in the lobby and walked at least 10 feet on the rubber mat and I am sure the moisture was off the bottom of my feet.'
The then room clerk and a bellman helped plaintiff up from the floor and onto a nearby davenport. Plaintiff said that while on the davenport he looked over to the area where he fell and the floor was dirty and wet; the back of his topcoat was wet and dirty with mud you would get off a floor that has been tracked. 'There definitely was water on the floor which made it slippery.'
After the bellman helped plaintiff to his room in a wheel chair the former mentioned it was a miserable night; the accident was unfortunate; it was also unfortunate there weren't more mats which would have helped the situation; he mentioned that the floor was dirty and wet and had to be cleaned up again; also that there was a porter who was supposed to handle 'this' but he was busy; no hotel employee warned plaintiff about the water he said he slipped and fell in.
On cross-examination plaintiff testified the sidewalks in front of the hotel had snow and slush on them; when he got out of his cab it was snowing heavily and blowing considerably; his flight from Chicago to Des Moines was delayed about three hours because of whether conditions. Also this:
'The lobby wasn't crowded by any means but a few people were around.'
Except for brief testimony from the cashier in the hotel that she saw plaintiff on the floor with one leg at an odd angle, he rested his case with his own testimony. Plaintiff suffered a broken ankle when he fell.
Witnesses for defendant were the hotel manager, a porter who was off duty on the evening of the accident (the porter then on duty was serving in the Marines in California at trial time); the then room clerk--assistant manager (not connected with the hotel at trial time) and the bellman on duty when plaintiff fell. Plaintiff relies on some testimony of these witnesses.
The manager testified it was the primary responsibility of the porter to keep the lobby clean, the floor mopped and do general clean-up work; the hotel is open 24 hours a day and a man is always on duty to clean the lobby and keep it clean always; surface of the lobby not covered by mats or carpet was marble; the hotel had 865,000 customers in 1966, most of whom came for food or beverage rather than rooms; no fall in the lobby other than plaintiff's was reported during the year.
On cross-examination the manager said the porters were ordered to keep the lobby spic and span without exception; during a heavy snow the mop bucket is brought into the lobby on a truck which stays there and extra porters are hired to assist, 'we would want someone there to watch very carefully for snow and ice that is tracked in; * * * I consider it necessary to have mops present to prevent the marble from being slippery from snow and ice or water.'
The off-duty porter testified duties of a porter were to keep the lobby clean and water off the floor at all times; on snowy days we constantly mop every hour, maybe every few minutes if it is real bad out, maybe every 15 minutes.
The then room clerk--assistant' manager said he saw plaintiff sitting on the floor right after his fall and observed the floor in that area; it was dry and clean; he saw some snow on part of plaintiff's shoe and that it was wet; plaintiff took off his shoe and handed it to the witness while the former looked at his ankle; the witness saw that the bottom of the shoe was wet; plaintiff told the witness not to worry about the accident, it was plaintiff's fault (plaintiff denied he made this statement); traffic and the number of customers at the hotel that evening were 'very nil;' he recalled the lobby had been cleaned that evening before plaintiff fell, it couldn't have been too much prior to the fall because the floor was dry and clean; he observed a little water in the area where plaintiff had fallen that looked like it came off a shoe, dirty water and snow were on the floor by plaintiff's shoe; a similar condition did not exist in the outer area of the lobby; the witness and the bellman moved plaintiff from his sitting position on the floor to the davenport.
The bellman said he helped the room clerk put plaintiff on the davenport; he observed his shoes and they were damp; a little water was on the floor where plaintiff sat; when the witness first saw plaintiff the floor was pretty clean and dry; there was very little traffic in or out that evening; he recalled the on-duty porter cleaned the floor several times earlier in the evening at intervals; the water he saw on the floor after plaintiff fell was 'just a couple of those small spots;' there wasn't much business that night and it didn't require more than one porter on duty.
III. The principal argument in support of defendant's first assigned error challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is that where a defendant-inviter does not create the condition causing its invitee to fall it must have had actual or constructive notice of the condition for a sufficient time to enable defendant to remedy it or to warn the invitee thereof. It is said there is no sufficient evidence of such notice here.
Plaintiff argues that while it is literally true recent Iowa cases have not abandoned the requirement of actual or constructive notice on which defendant relies, Plaintiff's view is that the vital questions are whether defendant exercised reasonable care to discover the alleged slippery condition of the floor and exercised such care to protect invitees against the danger. He asserts both questions were for the jury.
This is not a case where defendant-occupant created the alleged dangerous condition which caused plaintiff's injury. As to conditions so created, the owner or occupant is charged with knowledge thereof. In order to impose liability for injury to an invitee from a dangerous condition of premises created by others, the owner or occupant must have known of it or it must have existed for such time it was his duty in the exercise of ordinary care to know it and remedy it or warn the invitee thereof. We have so held many times and it is the law generally.
In Bartels v. Cair-Dem, Inc., 255 Iowa 834, 840-842, 124 N.W.2d 514, 518, plaintiff was injured by falling over an obstruction temporarily left in an aisle of a supermarket. As there observed, the rules stated in the opinion apply to injuries from other claimed dangerous conditions of the premises. We quote from the opinion: ...
To continue readingRequest your trial
Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc.
...verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. This is the effect of rule 344(f), par. 2, R.C.P. Ling v. Hosts, Inc., Iowa, 164 N.W.2d 123, 124. It is likewise viewed when appeal is taken from judgment on verdict for plaintiff, Denison v. Wiese, 251 Iowa 770, 773, ......
Weidenhaft v. Shoppers Fair of Des Moines, Inc.
...facts and circumstances which create a jury question and those which do not, under the principles of law stated above. Ling v. Hosts Incorporated, Iowa, 164 N.W.2d 123; Adams v. R. S. Bacon Veneer Co., Iowa, 162 N.W.2d 470, 472--473; Bradt v. Grell Construction, Inc., Iowa, 161 N.W.2d 336, ......
Miller v. Young, 53457
...evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. This is the effect of Rule 344(f), par. 2 Rules of Civil Procedure.' Ling v. Hosts, Inc., Iowa, 164 N.W.2d 123, 124. It is likewise viewed when appeal is taken from judgment on verdict for plaintiff. We need consider only the evidence favor......
Olson v. Katz
...we view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. This is the effect of rule 344(f), par. 2, R.C.P. Ling v. Hosts Incorporated, 164 N.W.2d 123, 124 (Iowa 1969). It is likewise viewed when appeal is taken from judgment on verdict for plaintiff. We need consider only the evidence......