Pollard v. Broadway Cent. Hotel Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1933
• Docket Number: No. 21860.,21860.
• Citation: 353 Ill. 312,187 N.E. 487
• Parties: POLLARD v. BROADWAY CENTRAL HOTEL CORPORATION.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

353 Ill. 312

187 N.E. 487

POLLARD

v.BROADWAY CENTRAL HOTEL CORPORATION.

No. 21860.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 21, 1933.

Error to Appellate Court, Fourth District, on Appeal from City Court of East St. Louis; William F. Borders, Judge.

Action by Helen C. Pollard against the Broadway Central Hotel Corporation. Judgment for plaintiff in sum of $7,500, after remittitur of $1,500, was reversed by Appellate Court for the fourth district (269 Ill. App. 77), and plaintiff brings certiorari.

Reversed and remanded to Appellate Court, with directions.

Wm. Baird & Sons, of Omaha, Neb., and Pope & Driemeyer, of East St. Louis, for plaintiff in error.

Josiah Whitnel, H. L. Browning, and J. R. McMurdo, all of East St. Louis, for defendant in error.

HERRICK, Justice.

The plaintiff in error (hereinafter called the plaintiff) brought suit in the city court of East St. Louis against the defendant in error (hereinafter called the defendant) to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by falling of tripping over an offset in the floor of a corridor in the hotel building of the defendant. The suit was twice tried in the city court. Each trial was before a jury. The jury were unable to agree in the first trial and were discharged by the trial court. On the second trial of the case a verdict was returned in the sum of $9,000. A motion for a new trial was interposed, and upon the argument of the motion for new trial the trial court required a remittitur of $1,500. The remittitur was retered. Thereupon the motion for new trial was denied and judgment was entered on the verdict in the sum of $7,500. An appeal was taken by the defendant from this judgment to the Appellate Court for the Fourth district. The Appellate Court reversed the case with the purported finding of fact, as follows: ‘The court finds, as a fact, that the plaintiff was not, at the time of ner injury, in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety.’ The case has been brought to this court upon certiorari.

The case was tried in the court below upon an original declaration consisting of one count and three additional counts. The original declaration charged, in substance, that the defendant, on and prior to the 8th day of October, 1930, owned and operated a hotel in the city of East St. Louis known as the Broadview Hotel; that on the 8th day of October, 1930, the plaintiff was a patron of the defendant's hotel, having arrived at the hotel on the 7th day of October, 1930; that in the hotel building the defendant maintained a certain corridor or passageway leading to the street, containing offsets or steps across the passageway which were not easily discernible and negligently maintained the passageway without the same being adequately lighted, and that while walking along the corridor or passageway, and in the exercise of due care and caution for her own safety, by reason of the negligence of the defendant the plaintiff unavoidably tripped and fell at one of the offsets or steps in the passageway, and was thereby then and there thrown and caused to fall with great force upon the floor of the corridor or passageway.

The first additional court charged the defendant had erected and owned a certain building in the city of East St. Louis and permitted the same to be used as a hotel, which hotel was known as the Broadview Hotel; that the defendant in constructing the hotel constructed a certain corridor, also, or passageway leading from the interior of the building to the street; that the floor of the corridor, aside, or passageway had the appearance of a smooth, level, polished surface, but that the floor as originally constructed and maintained contained an offset across the passageway which was not easily discernible, which offset constituted a defective and dangerous condition for persons walking through the passageway; that the plaintiff, while walking along the passageway, by reason of the negligence of the defendant, unavoidably tripped and fell at the offset of the passageway and was thereby thrown to the floor of the corridor and injured.

The second additional count charged the ownership and operation of the building in question by the defendant, and charged that in constructing the hotel building the defendant constructed a certain corridor or passageway leading from the interior of the building into the street; that the floor of the corridor or passageway had the appearance of a smooth, level, polished surface, but contained an offset across the passageway which was not discernible unless the corridor was artificially lighted, which offset, in the absence of artificial light, constituted a defective and dangerous condition for persons walking through the passageway; that the plaintiff, while walking along and through the passageway, by reason of the absence of light did not know and was unable to ascertain the existence of the offset in the floor, and as a result thereof she unavoidably tripped and fell at the offset in the passageway and was thereby thrown to the floor and injured.

The third additional count charged the ownership and operation of the building in question, and further averred that the building contained quarters suitable for a hotel and storerooms which had been leased to various parties by the defendant; that on the day in question a portion of the building was being used as a hotel and other portions of the hotel were being used for the purpose of offices and storerooms for the sale of merchandise; that the defendant in constructing the hotel constructed a certain corridor, aisle, or passageway leading from the interior of the building to the street, and along the aisle, corridor, or passageway on the main floor of the building there were various stores offices, and shops which could be entered through doors from the aisle, corridor, or passageway, which aisle, corridor, or passageway the defendant maintained for the use of its various tenants; that owing to the corridor, aisle, or passageway being inclosed on either side there was little natural light in the corridor or passageway, and it was necessary that the same be artificially lighted in order for pedestrians to pass along in safety; that in constructing the corridor the defendant constructed a floor therein having the appearance of a smooth, level, polished surface, but that the floor, as originally constructed and maintained, contained an offset across the passageway which was not easily discernible, which offset constituted a defective and dangerous condition for persons walking through the passageway in the event the passageway was not well lighted, and that the plaintiff, while walking in the passageway, by reason of the negligence of the defendant unavoidably tripped and fell at the offset in the passageway and was thereby injured.

Each of the additional counts charged that the plaintiff became a patron or guest of the hotel on the 7th day of October, 1930, and was injured on the 8th day of October, 1930, and each of the additional counts charged in apt terms that at and immediately before the time of her injury the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and caution for her own safety.

Ten special pleas were filed to the three additional counts and five special pleas to the original declaration. The general issue was also filed. Prior to the trial a written stipulation was made and filed, wherein it was agreed that the defendant might introduce any evidnece under the plea of general issue that it could under any special plea well pleaded.

The testimony on behalf of the plaintiff's case tended to prove the following facts: The Broadview Hotel is located on Broadway street and faces the south. The building extends easterly and westerly from Fourth street to Fifth street. Fourth street extends northerly and southerly along the west side of the building, and Broadway extends easterly and westerly along the south side of the building. The hotel has two entrances. The one entrance is from Broadway street, the other is from Fourth street. The entrance from Fourth street leads into a vestibule and thence into a corridor leading to the lobby of the hotel. This entrance is approximately ten feet wide and about the center of the building, on Fourth street. The corridor is about sixty feet in length. The main lobby of the hotel is a large open space about seventy-five feet square and located approximately in the center of the building. The ceiling of the main lobby is about twenty-five feet above the floor. The main desk of the hotel, where the plaintiff paid her bill and where she registered, is on the north side of the lobby, about due north from the Broadway street entrance and east of the Fourth street entrance. The elevators are in the southwest corner of the lobby. From the elevator a guest may turn to the right and go to the entrance on Broadway or may turn to the left and go to the entrance on Fourth street. The floor of the lobby, as well as the corridor leading to Fourth street, is constructed of a composition known as terrazo. There is an elevation of approximately twelve inches between the sidewalk level on the Fourth street entrance and the level of the lobby in the hotel. In this corridor leading from the lobby to Fourth street there are constructed two offsets or steps approximately six inches in height and about sixteen feet apart. Going from the lobby to Fourth street the first offset or step is about thirty feet from the west entrance of the corridor. Along this corridor are four doors leading into four office rooms, two of the office rooms being south of the corridor and extending to the front of the building on Broadway, and two of the doors to the north of the corridor leading into office rooms to the north of the corridor. The lobby was illuminated by six ceiling lights practically against the ceiling and two large suspended clusters of lights, one being directly in front of the desk and one near the entrance on...