Williams v. Mayer
| Decision Date | 08 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | 2268. |
| Citation | 4 So.2d 71 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. MAYER. |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1941.
Writ of Error Refused Jan. 5, 1942.
Loret, Percy & Bailey, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Marian Mayer of New Orleans, and Johnson & Kantrow, of Baton Rouge for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action. Plaintiff, in his petition, alleges that he fell down the stairway of a building owned by the defendant, in the City of Baton Rouge, and operated on the second and third floors as a hotel with the entrance thereto by vestibule on the first floor, fronting on Third Street, and a stairway leading therefrom to the second floor. Plaintiff alleges that he had visited a group of friends in one of the rooms of the said hotel, at least one of whom was a guest of the hotel; that while descending the stairway in the act of leaving the hotel he tripped and fell down to the vestibule at the entrance striking himself against the wall, and sustaining the severe injury set out in his petition, for which he claims damages. Plaintiff alleges that the cause of his tripping on the said stairway, when he was about half way down from the second floor to the entrance, was some old worn and torn mats on the stairway which were in need of repair and which had holes and slits in them, creating a kind of trap to his feet as he descended the stairway; that the said stairway was extremely dimly lighted and that there were no handrails on either side for holding on, thus making it impossible for him to regain his balance after tripping or to steady himself while descending the stairway. In other words, the charges of negligence against the defendant are: (a) In permitting the mats on the steps to become in such condition as to cause him to trip and fall and in failing to properly keep the stairway in a proper state of repair; (b) in failing to provide handrails on the sides of the steps; (c) in failing to maintain proper lighting of the steps; all of which caused a trap to those lawfully upon the premises.
From the allegations of plaintiff's petition, which, for the purpose of passing on the exception, must be accepted as proven, the plaintiff must be regarded as a person lawfully upon premises in which defendant was operating a hotel. The question of the ownership of the premises, for the determination of this case, has practically no bearing on the case. We are of the opinion that this case, if liability is to be found, rests on Articles 2315 and 2316, Civ.Code Article 2315 provides that: "Every act whatever of man that causes damages to another,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ortner v. Linch, 60-23
... ... In the Steinberg case the Supreme Court said: 'On the general relationship between a hotel operator and visitors of a guest, see Williams v. Mayer, La.App., 4 So.2d 71.' In the cited Louisiana case, the court (4 So.2d at page 72) had said: ... 'It is our opinion that by the very ... ...
-
Lemieux v. Lataille
...guests by reason of falling in unlighted hallways or stairways. Criswell v. Bankers Mortgage Co., 128 Kan. 609, 278 P. 722; Williams v. Mayer, La.App., 4 So.2d 71; Ritter v. Norman, 71 Wash. 563, 129 P. 103, 43 L.R.A., N.S., 657; Morten Investment Co. v. Jordan, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 887;......
-
Steinberg v. Irwin Operating Co.
...Noyes v. Fisher, 118 Fla. 494, 159 So. 666. On the general relationship between a hotel operator and visitors of a guest, see Williams v. Mayer, La.App., 4 So.2d 71. Applying these rules to the case before us, it is perfectly clear that Mrs. Steinberg enjoyed the status of an implied invite......
- Williams v. Mayer