Marden v. Radford
Decision Date | 24 June 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 18351.,18351. |
Citation | 84 S.W.2d 947 |
Parties | MARDEN v. RADFORD. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Darius A. Brown, Judge.
Action by Lovinnia Marden against E. K. Radford. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Henry S. Conrad, L. E. Durham, Hale Houts, Ilus M. Lee, and Wright Conrad, all of Kansas City, for appellant.
Charno & Drummond, of Kansas City, for respondent.
REYNOLDS, Commissioner.
This is an action by plaintiff, filed in the circuit court of Jackson county on October 27, 1932, against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her on or about August 13, 1932, in a fall in a kitchenette apartment, in the Claremont Hotel located at 3129 Forest avenue, Kansas City, Mo., occupied under a contract by her with the defendant as the owner thereof, which injuries were alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the defendant, the particulars of which negligence appear from the petition hereinafter set out. From a judgment of $3,000 rendered against him upon the trial, defendant, after unsuccessful motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, appeals.
The cause was tried upon a first amended petition, which is as follows:
The defendant made answer to such first amended petition by way of general denial and a plea of contributory negligence upon the plaintiff's part.
There was evidence tending to show that the Claremont Hotel was a large 3-story building containing 75 units or apartments, some consisting of several rooms and some of kitchenette suites of several sizes, of which defendant was the lessee; that entrance to the rooms was gained through the hotel lobby, which was furnished with tables, lamps, divans, and chairs; that the guests used this lobby in the evening for lounging and playing bridge; that in this lobby was located the hotel office, in charge of the hotel manager; that there were also a telephone switchboard and the hotel desk; that, near the desk, was a pigeonhole arrangement where the mail and the keys to the rooms and apartments were kept. Defendant testified that he controlled the entire building. Defendant called his establishment the "Hotel Claremont" and had bills printed upon which appeared the name "Hotel Claremont." Defendant operated this establishment under an hotel keeper's license. It was listed in the telephone directory as an hotel, of which defendant had knowledge. Defendant was manager of another establishment called the "Linmont," but the Linmont was classified as an apartment hotel. Plaintiff occupied what defendant called a one-room kitchenette, being apartment No. 108. The plaintiff took the room furnished and equipped. Defendant furnished all of the furniture and equipment required for its use and occupancy by plaintiff. It consisted of living room furniture and kitchenette equipment with bed linen, carpets on the floor, dishes, table linens, silverware, and other articles. Defendant furnished heat, gas, water, telephone service, and electricity for the apartment, all included in the price agreed to be paid by plaintiff for the occupancy of the apartment furnished and equipped. Plaintiff cooked with gas received by the hotel through its meter and furnished by it to her apartment. It was paid for by defendant. Electricity and water were furnished in the same manner. They were furnished by the defendant on his account and, in turn, supplied by him to plaintiff. The electric current was connected by plugs in the basement of the building in such a manner that defendant, by pulling out the plugs, could disconnect the current from the apartments, including plaintiff's. A telephone was furnished to plaintiff in her apartment but was listed under the name "Claremont Hotel." Defendant subscribed for telephone service under that name. The bill therefor was presented to him and paid by him. Defendant had two switchboard operators, who connected outside calls for plaintiff with her apartment. No charge was made against plaintiff for any such service, other than that included in the price being paid by her for the apartment. Defendant maintained his offices in the basement of the hotel. He employed a manager who looked after everything concerning the hotel. This manager lived and had her home in the hotel. Defendant had in his employ a fireman who attended to the heating of the hotel and the various apartments therein, including that occupied by plaintiff. Defendant furnished a man whose duty it was to clean up inside and outside of the building and to make simple repairs. He was authorized to do minor jobs of repairing, such as cleaning sinks, installing light bulbs, and the like. If repairs were needed, however, over and above the very simple, a repairman was called in by defendant and paid by defendant. Defendant also employed painters and paperhangers, who worked as occasion required and as authorized by him. Defendant testified that he considered that he was under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hogue v. Wurdack
...and tenant. State ex rel. Shall Petroleum Corp. v. Hostetter, 348 Mo. 841, 849, 156 S.W.2d 673, 677. See also Marden v. Radford, 229 Mo.App. 789, 799, 84 S.W.2d 947, 954(6); Fisher v. Payton, Mo.App., 219 S.W.2d 293, 296(5); 51 C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 6c, p. 514; Ibid., Sec. 2b(3)......
-
Rassieur v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co.
...and the court should not as a matter of law determine the case. Friedman v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 168 S.W.2d 956; Marden v. Radford, 84 S.W.2d 947; John Powers v. St. Louis Transit Co., 202 Mo. Wooldridge v. Scott County Milling Co., 102 S.W.2d 958. Jones, Hocker, Gladney & Grand......
-
People v. Podolsky
...West Management v. Mitchell, supra, in text, 47 N.Y.2d at p. 325, 418 N.Y.S.2d 310, 391 N.E.2d 1288; cf., e.g., Marden v. Radford, 229 Mo.App. 789, 84 S.W.2d 947, 958 [1935]; 64 Yale LJ, supra, in text at pp 399-400) and, therefore, reserves to landlords the right to enter for purposes of m......
-
Rocoff v. Lancella, 20599
...of the part occupied by the patron; and the character of use to which the premises are generally adapted and devoted. Marden v. Radford, 229 Mo.App. 789, 84 S.W.2d 947. 'The operation and management of the property as a motel under a license from the state and its advertising as a motel by ......