Trulock v. Willey

• Decision Date: 11 April 1911
• Docket Number: 3,454.
• Citation: 187 F. 956
• Parties: TRULOCK et al. v. WILLEY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

187 F. 956

TRULOCK et al. v. WILLEY.

No. 3,454.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 11, 1911

M Danaher, John M. Moore, W. B. Smith, and J. Merrick Moore for plaintiffs in error.

W. C Ratcliffe, John Fletcher, Cummins Ratcliffe, and Thomas C Hennings, for defendant in error.

Before HOOK and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and RINER, District Judge.

RINER District Judge.

This is an action at law to recover damages for personal injuries.

On the night of August 8, 1909, the defendant in error, hereafter called the plaintiff, was a guest at the Jefferson Hotel in the city of Pine Bluff, Ark.; said hotel being owned and maintained as a hotel for the accommodation of the public by the plaintiffs in error, hereafter called the defendants.

The record shows that the plaintiff registered at the hotel between 10 and 11 o'clock on the night of the 8th of August, and was assigned to room 349, located on the west side and on the third floor of the building. The room opened on a hall running north and south. There was a freight elevator located at the north end of the hall, the passenger elevator being located on a hall running north and south on the east side of the building. To reach the passenger elevator the plaintiff, as he passed out of his room into the hall, should have turned to the right, walked to the end of the hall, then turned to his left into a cross hall running east and west, and at the end of that hall again turned to the left and passed down the north and south hall on the east side of the building a short distance to the elevator. Instead of taking the course just described, the plaintiff, upon passing from his room into the hall, by mistake turned to the left and passed down the hall to the north and into the open shaft of the freight elevator.

The plaintiff testified that he had stayed overnight at the hotel on two former occasions, but upon both occasions had been located in a different part of the house and was not familiar with this hallway. He further testified:

'I went immediately to my room and went to bed and put in a call to call me at 7 o'clock next morning, and I was up dressing when the bell rang and answered the bell, told them alright, I would be down immediately. As soon as I could get ready, I came on down the hallway, making it for the passenger elevator with a bundle of laundry in this arm in front of me-- $1.75 package of laundry-- which obstructed my view partly and a big heavy suit case in the other hand. In walking down the hallway, my impression was that you bore to the left all the time to go to the passenger elevator. I walked straight down this hallway right in the center of the aisle, and walked into this shaft, which I mistook for the turn of the hallway, and I fell from the third floor to the bottom.'

On cross-examination he testified:

'I got my bearings turned and got turned around. I thought you would bear to the left to go to the passenger elevator and take the left-hand course, and I got up the next morning with that on my mind, and I though the hallway just followed on around to the passenger elevator, and, not thinking there was such a place like that left open, walked into it. * * * When I came out of my room, I figured out the way I would go, I thought I would keep to the left. * * * I simply thought I was turning where the place in the hall would turn.'

The record further shows that this freight elevator was provided with doors but at the time of the plaintiff's injury they were open, and the plaintiff testifies that he did not open them. It also appears that the shaft was not otherwise guarded.

The errors relied upon as set out in the brief are four in number and will be noticed in the order in which they are discussed.

1. The refusal of the court to instruct a verdict for the defendant.

This assignment of error presents two questions: First, the negligence of the defendants; and, second, was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence.

While it is true that the witnesses for the defendants, employes who had charge of the freight elevator, testified that the last time it was used for the purpose of delivering or receiving baggage they closed the door, and a bell boy who made a call for another guest about 6 o'clock in the morning testified that the door was closed at that time yet the fact remains that the door was open at the time the plaintiff fell into the shaft, and the defendants in their brief concede that the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' applies, and that the burden of proof is upon the defendants to show that the doors of the elevator were not left open through the negligence of their servants. The plaintiff testified that the door was open, and that he did not open it when he stepped into the shaft. The testimony of the defendants' servants who had charge of the elevator was to the effect that at the time they last used the elevator on that floor they closed the door. It therefore became clearly a question for the determination of the jury whether the door was left open by the negligence of the defendants' servants, or whether there was a sufficient and independent cause operating between the wrong and the injury.

Does the record show that the plaintiff was guilty of such contributory negligence that it became the duty of the court as a matter of law, to instruct a verdict for the defendants? A guest in a hotel is there on the invitation of the proprietor and for the proprietor's profit; and, while he...