Sheridan v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
|11 April 1940
|3 Wn.2d 423,100 P.2d 1024
|Washington Supreme Court
|SHERIDAN v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.
Action by Bernard L. Sheridan against James R. Stirrat and his wife for injuries sustained in a fall in elevator shaft, wherein the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and the Moline Elevator Company were by amendment named as additional defendants on the death of the named defendant. The wife was dismissed from the action. From an adverse judgment, the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company appeals.
An instruction that owner of a freight elevator is only required to use ordinary care in installing and keeping elevator in repair and is not required to install any other type of elevator as long as he uses such care as is ordinarily used by owners of other property where freight elevators are in operation, and that if the owner of the building used such care, a liability insurer would not be liable for injuries sustained by person who fell into empty elevator shaft as result of failure to automatic doors to close when elevator was taken to another floor, unless insurer was negligent in some other respect, while seemingly contradictory, was not prejudicial.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Roger J Meakim, judge.
J Speed Smith and Henry Elliott, Jr., both of Seattle, for appellant.
John F. Walthew and James W. Mifflin, both of Seattle, for respondent.
The plaintiff suffered severe injuries by a fall into a freight elevator shaft in the Stirrat building, on Second avenue, in the city of Seattle, and instituted action against the owners of the building, James R. Stirrat and wife, Catherine J., for recovery of resulting damages. James R. Stirrat died after institution of the action, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming as additional defendants the Moline Elevator Company, under contract with the owners of the building for servicing the elevator, and the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, which carried a liability policy on the elevator at the time of the accident.
The case was tried to a jury, and, at the close of plaintiff's case, the defendants severally interposed challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. The challenge of Catherine Stirrat was sustained, and she was dismissed from the action. The cause having proceeded to trial against the remaining defendants, the jury's verdict was in favor of the Moline Elevator Company and against the defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, made by the defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, having been overruled, judgment was entered on the verdict; and the casualty company appeals.
The respondent was employed by Bart Gagnon, transacting business as Gagnon Displays, Inc., in a shop on the fourth floor of the Stirrat building. A passenger elevator, maintained at the front of the building for the use of the tenants, ceased operations at six o'clock p. m. A freight elevator maintained at the rear of the building, was used by tenants for carrying materials and supplies to and from its several floors. Access to this elevator was had from an alley at the rear of the building, through a double door, parted horizontally. The manner of operating the doors is described by one of appellant's inspectors as follows:
No operator was maintained on the elevator, its movement being controlled by means of a cable operated by hand.
At about six o'clock, on the afternoon of August 19, 1936, the respondent and his employer, Gagnon, left the Stirrat building by the freight elevator, intending to have supper at a near-by restaurant and thereafter return to the shop on the fourth floor. They left the elevator at the alley level, the doors being open, and drove to the restaurant in Gagnon's car. The respondent finished his meal about twenty minutes after six and left to drive his employer's car to the alley.
He parked his car, facing north, on the east side of the alley, opposite the building and somewhat north of the elevator entrance; then walked across the alley and south to the entrance, turned to the right and stepped into the shaft, falling some twenty-five feet and sustaining the injuries for which he seeks to recover damages. The elevator cage was then at an upper floor, the reasonable inference, of course, being that it had been moved upward during his absence, and that the automatic closing device failed to function.
The day was clear, and the sun did not set until 7:16 p. m., according to government meteorological reports. The respondent testified:
On cross-examination, he testified that he could not name any particular thing he saw in the shaft that lead him to believe the elevator platform was there; that the 'picture as a whole' made it appear to him that it was.
'I don't know that I particularly saw the cables.
* * *
* * *
Gagnon, who left the restaurant some ten minutes after the respondent, testified, on cross-examination, that it was daylight when he returned to the alley entrance, around 6:30. He believed the sun was down, but was not sure. It was a bright day. When he walked up to the elevator shaft, he had no trouble in seeing that the elevator doors were open and the elevator platform was not at the alley level. There was no artificial light in the shaft. The cage carried an electric light at the top, and there is some conflict in the evidence as to its sufficiency. At any rate, as the cage was above the alley level, it could not have lighted the shaft below.
Respondent testified that the elevator cage had the shape of an open-ended basket, with a platform in between, the sides being protected by a wire grill or netting. On approaching the elevator shaft at the alley level, when the doors were open, one would see the same blank wall at the rear whether the elevator was at that level or not. There was evidence tending to prove that the alley doors were of such construction that they were insufficient for their intended uses, and that, during a considerable period preceding the accident, they had frequently failed to close automatically as the elevator was moved from the alley level.
The errors assigned by the appellant for reversal of the judgment are grouped under two heads: First, those involving the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment; and secondly, those based upon the improper reception of evidence and the giving of faulty instructions. Under the first group of assignments, the appellant contends: (a) That the respondent has no rights under the liability policy; (b) that appellant is not liable by reason of its inspection of the elevator in the Stirrat building, pursuant to...
To continue readingRequest your trial
Smith v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., Docket Nos. 60645 and 62465
...& Ins. Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 201 F. 617 (C.A.7, 1912).38 Id., p. 629.39 Id.40 See fn. 17, supra.41 Sheridan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 3 Wash.2d 423, 100 P.2d 1024 (1940); Bollin v. Elevator Construction & Repair Co., 361 Pa. 7, 63 A.2d 19 (1949).42 Smith v. American Employers' Ins......
Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., Gen. No. 48164
...assuming another's obligations are Zamecki v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 202 Md. 54, 95 A.2d 302 and Sheridan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 3 Wash.2d 423, 100 P.2d 1024.) Plaintiffs rely substantially upon Smith v. American Employers' Insurance Co., 102 N.H. 530, 163 A.2d 564, a s......
Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., 37795
...of Ivanhoe's engineer were circumstances which created a duty upon the insurer to inspect with due care. In Sheridan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 3 Wash.2d 423, 100 P.2d 1024, the insurer issued an insurance policy on an elevator, the policy reserving the right to inspection. Thereafter,......
Banaghan v. Dewey
...& Repair Co., Inc., 361 Pa. 7, 63 A.2d 19, 6 A.L.R.2d 277; Sutton v. Otis Elevator Co., 68 Utah 85, 249 P. 437; Sheridan v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 3 Wash.2d 423, 100 P.2d 1024. Here the jury could have found that the elevator company had contracted with the trustees, at least to inspect the......