Montfort v. West Texas Hotel Co.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1938
• Docket Number: No. 3684.,3684.
• Citation: 117 S.W.2d 811
• Parties: MONTFORT v. WEST TEXAS HOTEL CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

117 S.W.2d 811

MONTFORT v. WEST TEXAS HOTEL CO.

No. 3684.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 19, 1938.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1938.

Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; Ballard Coldwell, Judge.

Action by E. M. Montfort against the West Texas Hotel Company for injuries plaintiff's wife sustained in falling down a flight of stairs. Judgment for defendant notwithstanding a verdict for plaintiff, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Fred C. Knollenberg and J. M. Deaver, both of El Paso, for appellant.

Kemp, Nagle & Smith, of El Paso, for appellee.

NEALON, Chief Justice.

Appellee West Texas Hotel Company is an innkeeper and operates the Hotel Cortez at El Paso, Texas. E. M. Montfort and wife were paying guests at Hotel Cortez on January 15, 1937, at which time Mrs. Montfort fell down a flight of stairs. Her fall was occasioned by her stepping upon a drinking glass that had been left upon one of the stairs. Plaintiff brought this action against appellee to recover damages on account of his wife's injuries. The case was submitted to a jury, which found that her fall was occasioned by stepping upon the drinking glass, that the glass had been there such a length of time that the defendant by the use of ordinary care should have known of its presence; that the Hotel Company was negligent in failing to discover the glass on the step; that such negligence was the proximate cause of Mrs. Montfort's fall; that she suffered damages in the amount of $1875. Upon motion of appellee judgment was rendered for defendant non obstante veredicto. From this judgment plaintiff appeals.

The evidence did not indicate who placed or left the glass upon the stair or the length of time that it had been in such position before Mrs. Montfort was injured or that any of defendant's agents or servants knew of its presence upon the stair.

Opinion.

Appellant's contentions are confined to two propositions: (1) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, and that the burden was upon defendant to show that it was not negligent; (2) that defendant owed Mrs. Montfort the duty of furnishing a safe place to walk and the Court should not have placed upon plaintiff the burden of showing who placed the glass upon the stair or how long it had been there.

With these propositions we do not agree. As an innkeeper, defendant was not an insurer of its guests' safety. Its responsibility was limited to the exercise of reasonable care. 14 R.C.L. p. 509; Baugh v. McCleskey, Tex.Civ.App., 292 S.W. 950; Baker v. Dallas Hotel Company, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 825; Crockett v. Troyk, Tex.Civ. App., 78 S.W.2d 1012.

It was not proved that the object that caused the injury was used by defendant in the operation of its business. The evidence does not indicate by whom it was used or how it happened to be upon the stair. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply.

The question of appellee's liability depends upon whether evidence that defendant was negligent was placed before the jury. For such...