The Ansonia v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 23 January 1917
• Docket Number: 146
• Citation: 239 F. 296
• Parties: THE ANSONIA v. SULLIVAN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

239 F. 296

THE ANSONIA v. SULLIVAN.

No. 146

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 23, 1917

Edgar J. Treacy and Alfred E. Holmes, both of New York City, for plaintiff in error.

Augustus L. Richards and Ralph S. Harris, both of New York City, for defendant in error.

Before COXE, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.

COXE Circuit Judge.

At the time of the occurrences in question the defendant operated a large hotel fronting on Broadway and occupying the entire space between Seventy-Third and Seventy-Fourth streets for a considerable distance back from Broadway. The hotel is 18 stories in height and has accommodations for several thousand guests. A part is used for transient guests and a part is occupied by apartments, where the guests do their own housekeeping. The hotel has four main entrances for the use of guests-- two on Broadway, one on Seventy-Third street and one on Seventy-Fourth street.

There is also a delivery entrance which opens into the basement where there is a service elevator for the delivery of merchandise and supplies of all kinds to the hotel and its guests. The only way of reaching the delivery entrance at the time in question was by a runway extending from street to street at the rear of the building. This runway was bounded by high walls on both sides. It was a one way road in the sense that vehicles could not pass each other while moving on the road proper. It was near the Seventy-Fourth street entrance that Sullivan received the injury which caused his death. A short distance from the entrance to the runway was a chain with rings at either end. These rings were fastened to hooks in the opposite walls of the runway so that the chain sagged in the middle to about the height of a man's chest. There is a disagreement between the witnesses as to the exact height of the chain above the floor or pavement of the runway, but it is wholly unnecessary to attempt an accurate estimate in the face of the proof that the chain caught Sullivan and threw him down when he was endeavoring to deliver a package at the hotel. There can be little doubt that the purpose of the chain directly across the runway was to prevent delivery wagons going in after 6 o'clock. As one of the witnesses expressed it, 'We don't allow any wagons down there after 6 o'clock summer or winter. ' This was the primary object of the chain and it was not intended to prevent pedestrians from transacting business with the hotel through the Seventy-Fourth Street entrance after that hour. The testimony is undisputed that servants and clerks having business with the hotel used the entrance without objection.

Sullivan had no notice of the chain and it does not appear that he was at this particular entrance at any time previous to March 21st, the day when he was killed. He was there during the morning of the 21st,...