West v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 21 November 1892
• Parties: WEST v. THOMAS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

11 So. 768

97 Ala. 622

WEST v. THOMAS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 21, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; JOHN P. HUBBARD Judge.

Action by W. A. Thomas against D. P. West for personal injuries. There was a verdict of $2,500 in plaintiff's favor, and from a judgment thereon defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint contained two counts, in each of which, as amended the plaintiff claimed damages for that, as the defendant was the proprietor of an hotel in the city of Montgomery, who entertained guests for hire, giving them lodging and board and extended to the public an invitation to come to his hotel for such purposes, he had invited the plaintiff, as one of the public, to come to his hotel and engage a room on the night of the injury complained of; that as such guest of the defendant, the defendant owed him the duty of taking due and proper care that the plaintiff should be safely lodged proteced, and secured from danger and harm in such hotel that while the guest of said hotel, and while walking along one of the halls of the same, he, the plaintiff, fell down the stairway, which took up one half of the width of the hall; and that the cause of his falling down the stairway was that the hall was not sufficiently lighted to enable him to see the opening therein; that the defendant was negligent in not providing sufficient light to warn the plaintiff, as well as other guests, of the opening in the hallway caused by the stairway, and was also negligent in not having the stairway guarded by an inclosure or otherwise that would prevent the guests from falling therein. The defendant demurred to each of the counts in the complaint, and set out in various ways that the allegations were not sufficient to fasten any negligence upon the defendant, nor sufficient to authorize a recovery by the plaintiff. The court overruled the demurrers to the complaint; the defendant pleaded, in short, by consent, the general issue and contributory negligence. There was much testimony introduced, and several rulings thereon but it is not deemed necessary, under the decision of this court as announced by the accompanying opinion, to notice them in detail. The defendant separately excepted to the giving of several charges asked by the plaintiff, but the assignments of error do not bring up these rulings for review. The defendant requested the court to give the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "That the witness McGrath did not testify before the jury that it was not usual and customary to have in hotels such stairways as the one down which plaintiff claims to have fallen." (2) "If the jury believe from the evidence that it is usual and customary, in buildings of two or more stories, to have stairways leading from the lower to the upper stories or floors, which open into the hallways, and if they further believe that the stairway down which it is alleged the plaintiff fell was such a stairway as it is usual and customary to have in such buildings, and that the plaintiff undertook to walk along the hallway from room 31 to room 14, or the room which had been assigned to him, and that the hallway was so dark as to render it impossible for one walking along the same to see any stairway that might open into the same, and if they further believe that the plaintiff undertook to go along such hallway from room 31 to room occupied by him, while it was in this darkened condition, and made no effort to obtain any one to guide him along the same, then he was guilty of such contributory negligence as would prevent him from recovering in this action." (3) "If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff went to the hotel of the defendant on the night of the 5th day of July, 1889; that he was assigned to room 14 on the second story of said building; that about the hour of 11 o'clock at night he left the said room, and went along a hallway running in a southerly direction to room 31, which was about 136 feet from room 14, to visit a friend who occupied room 31; and, if they further believe that after spending some time in the room occupied by his friend, the plaintiff left the same, and walked along said hallway towards room 14, and that at the time he entered said hallway it was so dark that he was unable to see any stairway that might open into the same, and that plaintiff made no effort to obtain a guide to direct him along the same; and if they further believe that the plaintiff, while walking along said hallway, walked into and fell down a stairway, whereby he received his injuries,-then he, the plaintiff, was guilty of such contributory negligence as would disentitle him from recovering a verdict in this action." (4) "If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff undertook to walk along the hallway, so darkened as to render him unable to see the stairway or stair opening, and if they...