Rose v. Adelphia Hotel

• Decision Date: 17 March 1930
• Docket Number: 265
• Citation: 149 A. 644,300 Pa. 1
• Parties: Rose, Appellant, v. Adelphia Hotel
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

149 A. 644

300 Pa. 1

Rose, Appellant, v. Adelphia Hotel

No. 265

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 17, 1930

Argued January 7, 1930

Appeal, No. 265, Jan. T., 1929, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1927, No. 5308, on verdict for defendant, in case of Abraham Rose v. Adelphia Hotel. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before FERGUSON, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Errors assigned were refusal of new trial and various rulings quoting record seriatim.

The judgment of the court below in refusing a new trial is affirmed.

Alvin L. Levi, of Levi & Mandel, for appellant.

Layton M. Schoch, for appellee.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE FRAZER:

This appeal is from refusal of the court below to grant a new trial after verdict in favor of defendant. Plaintiff, an active man in good health, was a guest at a wedding dinner of his granddaughter, given at the Adelphia Hotel in Philadelphia. Apparently there were numerous other guests present, and a long platform seven feet wide and approximately sixteen inches high was placed at the end of the dining room, where dinner was served on a special table to a number of those present. The platform was flush with the end wall, except at sections or spaces between radiators. A carpet was spread over the platform and extended to the wall, upon which chairs were placed between the table and the wall. Immediately previous to serving refreshments, plaintiff was busily engaged in greeting and giving attention to guests on the floor of the room. The dinner was in progress at the time he started to reach the chair allotted to him on the platform, and either when immediately upon it, or a few feet from the end, he was seen to suddenly fall and upon being assisted to his feet, complained of pains in his breast and side. Plaintiff contends that in walking towards his chair he stepped upon a part of the carpet which, as is alleged, covered the empty space between radiators, and that the fall and injuries were the results of negligence on the part of defendant in not maintaining the premises so as to secure safety of guests. No testimony was offered by defendant, and after an extended charge by the court the case was submitted to the jury, who found for defendant.

It has long been the rule that it will always be presumed that the discretion of the trial court has been rightly used, unless the contrary plainly appears; and, as we have said, in effect, in many earlier cases, it is not within our province to review the action of the court below in granting or refusing a new trial, unless palpable abuse of the court's powers appears. The record in the present case shows no such abuse of discretion, either in the charge to the jury or in the determination of the case by the court in banc. Appellant's counsel present a contrary contention, and, in their statement of questions involved, set forth two propositions which cover the substance of the assignments of error. It is claimed the verdict for defendant was so capricious as to entitle appellant to a new trial; and, second, that the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies here.

It is certainly true that neither the testimony of plaintiff nor that of his witnesses, showed how he fell or what caused him to fall, while upon the platform in the banquet hall; and if other facts and circumstances disclosed at the trial were no more definite and enlightening than was the evidence as to the manner of the accident, any other verdict would have been the result of conjecture. The learned court below found the evidence sustained the verdict, which could not, as it said, be regarded as capricious.

We fail to see how the jury could have arrived at a different conclusion. Nothing in the testimony of plaintiff himself fastened the charge of negligence upon defendant. His testimony was: "I had to get up on the steps to the platform, and I had to pass the chairs where the people were sitting already at the table, and as I come through there wasn't very much space to pass, and I don't know -- I was trying to get through, and I remember I fell in and got hurt and that is all I know." The...