Walker v. New Haven Hotel Co.

• Decision Date: 20 July 1920
• Citation: 95 Conn. 231,111 A. 59
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WALKER v. NEW HAVEN HOTEL CO.

111 A. 59

95 Conn. 231

WALKER v. NEW HAVEN HOTEL CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 20, 1920

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Frank D. Haines Judge.

Action by Margaret Walker against the New Haven Hotel Company for personal injuries incurred through a fall in the lobby of the defendant's hotel, occasioned by the alleged negligent maintenance and use by the defendant of a rug upon the tiling of the lobby floor. Verdict and judgment for the defendant and plaintiff appeals. No error.

The plaintiff claimed to have established these facts: For a period of years which covered the time of the occurrences involved the defendant has owned and maintained a hotel in New Haven known as the Hotel Taft. The street floor of its building included a large lobby, used for the reception of and as a lounging place for its guests and patrons, and floored with a hard tiling having a more or less polished and slippery surface. Two elevators on the north side of this lobby are operated for the convenience of persons patronizing the hotel, and approached by a direct passage from the body of the lobby running between two large upright columns, 9 feet apart and near the elevators' entrance. On May 1 1917, the portable furniture of the lobby included a number of large settees, so placed as to leave convenient passageways from various points, including a side entrance from the lobby to the Shubert Theater, to and from the elevators referred to, and at 8 o'clock on that evening these seats were occupied, and many guests were standing in the passageways described. On that day, and for a long time before it, " the defendant maintained and permitted a soft, flexible, and easily wrinkled stringer rug to lie" on the floor of the lobby between the columns, and lengthwise of the passage to the elevators, " which rug was somewhat worn and frayed on its edges, and because of the constant travel upon it was easily displaced, and was in fact frequently wrinkled and displaced, which condition was well known to the management of said hotel. Because of said condition there was a standing order in said hotel to straighten out and keep said rug, if possible smooth and flat upon said floor, which orders were often carried out by the attendants in said hotel."

On the evening in question the plaintiff, as one of several guests of people living in the hotel, had left her wraps in the apartment of her hosts on an upper floor, and proceeded at about 8 o'clock to the Shubert Theater. After reaching her seat, she felt the need of her wrap, and at once left the theater to return for it to the apartment where it had been left. When she arrived in the hotel lobby on her way to the elevator, she was conscious that the floor was slippery, and walked with caution; but at no time was she conscious that the rug referred to was lying on the floor ahead of her. She saw that both elevators were open for use, and she approached, looking straight ahead at them and at their attendants, who stood before them. She was hurrying a little, and was obliged to pass between and around other guests standing in the passageway. As she reached the spot where the rug lay, " she slipped the toe of her right foot under it," and, stepping upon the rug with her left foot, was immediately pitched forward to the floor, landing upon her face and body, and receiving severe and painful injuries.

The defendant claimed to have proved that the plaintiff, from frequent visits to friends at the hotel, well knew the condition and character of the lobby floor, and had often passed over the rug referred to, which was not badly worn or frayed on its edges; that she was accustomed to hardwood floors and rugs, both at home and in the homes of her friends; that she was hurrying when she left the theater to secure her wrap, and as she approached the elevator through the hotel lobby, which was brightly lighted, she was proceeding " in a half walk and half run," with her eyes fixed upon the waiting elevator and looking at nothing else; that the rug lay flat and unwrinkled at the time, and the plaintiff's tripping upon it was due solely to her failure to observe where she was going.

Upon motion of the plaintiff the jury viewed the hotel lobby, with the rug placed where it lay at the time the plaintiff was injured. Upon the trial of the case, the plaintiff offered as a witness the manager of a local insurance agency, who, in the jury's absence, was asked whether, as agent of an insurance company, he had " issued a policy guaranteeing a loss against damage to the New Haven Hotel Company covering their case now on trial." The question was claimed " for the purpose of showing and proving, or tending to prove, that the hotel management saw that danger which we are complaining of, and anticipated it, and insured against it." Upon objection it was excluded, and an exception was noted to the ruling.

The plaintiff offered two witnesses, Ex-Gov. Woodruff and Mr. Walker, the injured woman's husband, who testified to an acquaintance with conditions existing in the hotel lobby prior to the night in question. Each was asked whether on any occasion before that night he had seen the rug referred to " displaced and wrinkled" or " corrugated at the edges." Mr. Woodruff was also asked:

" Did you ever yourself slip on that rug in that hotel prior to May 1, 1917?"

And this question was asked of the other:

" Knowing the quality and class of the rug, whether or not, in your opinion, it would be wrinkled up, if any one stepped on it a glancing step?"

Each of these...