Sprayberry v. Independence Indem. Co.
| Docket Number | 19733. |
| Decision Date | 15 February 1930 |
| Citation | 152 S.E. 125,41 Ga.App. 133 |
| Parties | SPRAYBERRY v. INDEPENDENCE INDEMNITY CO. et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a woman is employed by the management of a hotel as "housekeeper" for the hotel, and is required to live in the hotel, and, in the discharge of her duties as housekeeper, is permitted to ride in the nighttime on the service elevator of the hotel, her duties presumably, in the absence of any evidence otherwise, require her at some time whether in the nighttime or in the daytime, to be present in the rooms of the guests of the hotel.
Where a housekeeper of a hotel is required to live in the hotel and to be on duty in the nighttime, and, after a visit extending from about 9 p. m. to about 11 p. m., in rooms of guests of the hotel in which she in attending a "party," at which intoxicating liquors are served, and not herself partaking of any of the liquors, leaves the rooms and, with the intention of returning to her room, proceeds to an elevator which she, in the discharge of her duties as housekeeper, is permitted to use in the nighttime, and while in the elevator for this purpose falls from it and is injured, the injury arises out of and in the course of her employment. This is true notwithstanding, when proceeding to her room by way of the elevator, she intended to get her coat and hat and leave the hotel and go on a ride with one of the hotel guests in whose room she had been visiting.
Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; P. W. Meldrim, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. Birdie Sprayberry, employee, claimant, against the General Oglethorpe Hotel Company, employer, and the Independence Indemnity Company, insurance carrier. Judgment against claimant was affirmed by superior court, and claimant brings error.
Reversed.
Stella Akin, of Savannah, and Oliver C. Hancock and T. G. Lewis both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Connerat & Hunter, of Savannah, for defendants in error.
Mrs Birdie Sprayberry filed with the Industrial Commission a claim for compensation against General Oglethorpe Hotel Company as the employer and Independence Indemnity Company as the insurance carrier. The Industrial Commission found against the claimant. This judgment was, on appeal to the superior court, affirmed.
The sole issue presented for determination is whether the accident upon which the claim was predicated arose out of and in the course of the claimant's employment. It is undisputed that Mrs. Sprayberry was the housekeeper of the hotel, and lived in the hotel, occupying a room on the first floor; that on the evening of December 13, 1927, she was injured by a fall from the elevator in the hotel, which she had entered with the intention of returning to her room after a visit to a guest of the hotel.
Mrs. Sprayberry testified that she was the housekeeper of the hotel; that her duties as such consisted in looking after the guests and the rooms of the hotel, and in answering complaints from the guests; that she lived in the hotel, and was required to be there day and night; that she received for her services $100 per month, including her room and board, which amounted to $150; that about 9 o'clock on the night of the accident, in response to a call to come to the room of one of the guests of the hotel, she went to the room to "see about" something which the guest had spilt upon the carpet in the room, and in going to the room she used the service elevator of the hotel; that she attended to the matter with respect to the carpet in the room of the guest; that this required about ten minutes, and she then proceeded to return to her room on the floor below by using the same elevator, and, while attempting to leave the elevator, after it had become stuck between the floors, she fell, and received the injury for which she claimed compensation. The claimant contends that, when the accident happened, she was about the business of her employment as housekeeper for the hotel and was in the discharge of her duties as such, and that therefore the accident arose out of and in the course of her employment.
The hotel company and the insurance carrier, on the other hand, contend that the claimant, while in the elevator at the time of the accident, was not in the discharge of her duties as housekeeper for the hotel, but was acting outside of and beyond her duties as such. They contend that her presence in the guest rooms of the hotel was not for the purpose of attending upon any duty incident to her employment as housekeeper of the hotel, but that she was in the rooms in company with another woman and two male guests of the hotel in attendance on a party where intoxicating liquors were being served, that she had therefore abandoned the duties of her employment and was in the rooms on a mission purely personal to herself, and that, in leaving the party and in proceeding to the elevator, she was proceeding to her room for the purpose of getting her hat and thereby making preparation for a contemplated ride with one of the guests of the hotel who had been in attendance on this liquor party, and who was in the elevator with her, and that she, at the time of the accident, was still disassociated from the duties of her employment and was still on a mission purely personal to herself.
Mrs. Sprayberry further testified that, on the occasion of her visit to the room in the hotel to which she claims she had been summoned on a matter respecting her duties as housekeeper, no liquor was served, and that she had not drunk any liquor that night, that she had no engagement to go to ride with any one, and was not returning to her room to make preparations for that purpose. A bell boy of the hotel, who was introduced as a witness by the hotel and the insurance carrier, testified that, on the evening upon which Mrs. Sprayberry was injured, he responded to two calls from the room of the guest of the hotel to which Mrs. Sprayberry claims she had gone in the discharge of her duties; that he responded to the first call about 9 o'clock, and to the second call about a half hour later, that on each occasion he found this guest and Mrs. Sprayberry and a man and a woman in the room; that he took cracked ice and ginger ale to the room, and whisky was being served there, and that the other woman in the room was the wife of the manager of the hotel, and her position was that of "hostess" of the hotel. The witness testified that he served these people in two different rooms, one of the rooms being that of the woman in the party whom he designated as the wife of the manager of the hotel. He testified also that the people he served were the only guests in the hotel at the time. The physician who examined Mrs. Sprayberry immediately after her injury testified that he did not recall detecting any odor of alcohol about her person." Mr. F. L. Shotwell, who at the time was the assistant manager of the hotel, testified that he saw Mrs. Sprayberry immediately after the accident, and that he detected the odor of alcohol about Mrs. Sprayberry's person, but "not necessarily on her breath." He testified also to a statement made by the guest of the hotel whose room, Mrs. Sprayberry stated, she visited that night, that "we had a few drinks, probably five or six." He testified also that Mrs. Sprayberry stated to him that she had accepted the guest's invitation to ride, and that she was going to her room to get her hat and coat, and expected to get them and go out. He further testified as follows: That on December 13 he was assistant manager of General Oglethorpe Hotel; that on the evening of that day Mrs. Sprayberry, the claimant, fell from what is called the "100th floor, to the pit of the elevator shaft, the 100th floor being one floor above the lobby floor, or ground floor," and that he found her on the basement floor "apparently suffering great pain, moaning and shrieking"; that Mrs. Sprayberry's employment was that of "housekeeper"; that Mrs. Sprayberry was using the service elevator which is the elevator used, as he stated, by "waiters, chambermaids, housekeeper, and other employees, going up and down stairs. ***" He also testified as follows: He stated that Mrs. Sprayberry's salary was $100 per month including a room and meals.
Did the evidence authorize the Industrial Commission to conclude that Mrs. Sprayberry, at the time of the accident was not in and about the duties of a housekeeper for which she was employed? Other than the evidence of Mrs. Sprayberry to the effect that her duties were to look after the guests of the hotel and the rooms, and to answer complaints from guests, there is no evidence of what her duties as housekeeper consisted. Counsel for the hotel and the insurance carrier concede that, if the facts are as testified to by Mrs. Sprayberry, her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, and she would be entitled to compensation. They insist that, in view of testimony by way of impeachment of Mrs. Sprayberry's testimony, her testimony should be wholly disregarded.
Eliminating Mrs. Sprayberry's testimony from consideration, there remains, as respects the question at issue, only the...
To continue reading
Request your trial