Rome Miller v. Emil Strahl
| Decision Date | 20 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 458,458 |
| Citation | 60 L.Ed. 364,36 S.Ct. 147,239 U.S. 426 |
| Parties | ROME MILLER, Plff. in Err., v. EMIL J. STRAHL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Edgar M. Morsman, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 426-428 intentionally omitted] Messrs. H. C. Brome, Clinton Brome, and H. S. Daniel for defendant in error.
Action for the recovery of $15,000 on account of injuries sustained by defendant in error while a guest at the hotel of plaintiff in error, caused by the negligence of the latter and in violation of a law of the state of Nebraska.
Plaintiff in the case, defendant in error here, alleges that the plaintiff in error was the proprietor and operator of what is known as the Millard Hotel, located in Omaha, Nebraska, and that, as such, he received and entertained defendant in error as a guest for hire; that on the night of January 22, 1911, and during the morning of January 23, defendant in error occupied a room on the fourth floor of the hotel; that the hotel had more than fifty rooms and was four or more stories high; that between midnight and dawn, January 23, 1911, a 'hostile fire' broke out in the hotel, which, it is alleged, by reason of the negligence of plaintiff in error, was not properly discovered or controlled, and a portion of the hotel was burned, the halls thereof filled with smoke and gases, endangering the lives of the guests and inmates; that plaintiff in error and his servants failed and neglected to awaken the guests or give them notice of the fire, and that by reason thereof defendant in error was injured by the smoke and gases in attempting to escape from the hotel.
The specifications of negligence are as follows:
(1) Failure to maintain a competent night watchman; that the hotel was not properly patrolled, examined, or inspected, and that its employees negligently failed to be at their posts of duty to respond to the warnings given them.
(2) Plaintiff in error did not maintain an efficient or sufficient system of fire gongs for arousing guests, that he did not, as soon as the fire was discovered, ring or cause to be rung a fire gong on the fourth floor, or ring or cause to be rung a telephone in the room of defendant in error, or in any other way awaken, arouse, or notify him of the existence of the fire.
(3) Plaintiff in error did not notify defendant in error of the location of the stairway leading from the fourth floor; that the hotel did not have a sufficient number of stairways; that plaintiff in error failed to operate the elevator, failed to respond to defendant in error's demand to be removed, and failed to have any light, sign, or notice indicating the location of the elevator.
(4) Defendant in error's room was furnished with a rope which plaintiff in error represented could be used for the purpose of a fire escape, but that it was too small and insufficient for such purpose, and that proper directions were not given for its use as a means of escape. Defendant in error attempted to escape by means of this rope and in doing so suffered bodily injuries.
There were general denials of these allegations and averments of negligence on the part of defendant in error which directly, it is averred, contributed to and caused his injuries, and without which, it is further averred, he would not have received them. A knowledge of or means of knowledge of the plans of the hotel and means of ingress and egress were averred, and also the equipment of the hotel lights in its halls, notices and fire escapes.
The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for defendant in error in the sum of $6,500, upon which judgment was entered. It was affirmed by the supreme court of the state.
The supreme court in its opinion says: [97 Neb. 823, 151 N. W. 952.]
The court decided that there was a common-law liability upon a hotel keeper 'to protect his guests from danger when it is reasonably within his power to do so,' and cited besides, § 3104 of the Revised Statutes of the state, 1913, which reads as follows:
The statute is attacked on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution of the state (with which we have no concern) and the Constitution of the United States. As a foundation for the contention plaintiff in error asserts that the trial court, whose action was affirmed by the supreme court of the state, specifically instructed the jury that plaintiff in error 'and all his employees and the night watchman at the hotel owed' to defendant in error ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sears
... ... U.S. 373, 377, 33 S.Ct. 780, 57 L.Ed. 1232; Miller v ... Strahl, 239 U.S. 426, 434, 36 S.Ct. 147, 60 L.Ed. 364 ... ...
-
State v. Casselman, 7502
... ... Idaho, 246 U.S. 343, 38 S.Ct. 323, 62 L.Ed. 763; ... Miller v. Strahl, 239 U.S. 426, 36 S.Ct. 147, 60 ... L.Ed. 364; Nash v. U.S ... ...
-
Monroe v. Pape
...foreseeability, etc. And see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521, 45 S.Ct. 169, 69 L.Ed. 419; Miller v. Strahl, 239 U.S. 426, 36 S.Ct. 147, 60 L.Ed. 364. 7. See Koehler v. United States, 5 Cir., 189 F.2d 711; Clark v. United States, 5 Cir., 193 F.2d 294; Crews v. United States,......
-
Louisville Gas Electric Co v. Coleman
...1207. A fire inspection law which applied to hotels with 50 or more rooms, but not to hotels with 49 or less. Miller v. Strahl, 239 U. S. 426, 434, 36 S. Ct. 147, 60 L. Ed. 364. A law which required the licensing of physicians who during the preceding year had treated 11 or less persons, bu......
-
Formally legal, probably wrong: corporate tax shelters, practical reason and the New Textualism.
...in civil situations as well. See, e.g., A. B. Small Co. v. Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 267 U.S. 233, 238-42 (1925). But see Miller v. Strahl, 239 U.S. 426, 434 (1915) (noting "[r]ules of conduct may necessarily be expressed in general terms"). (93.) Indeed, Scalia concedes that, "[o]ne can conceive......