Williams v. Milner Hotels Co.

Decision Date27 January 1944
Citation130 Conn. 507,36 A.2d 20
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesWILLIAMS v. MILNER HOTELS CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; McEvoy, Judge.

Action by Elijah Williams against Milner Hotels Company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.The case was tried to the jury.Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Spencer S. Hoyt and Walter A. Mulvihill, both of New Haven, for appellant.

John Henry Sheehan and George W. Chisaski, both of New Haven, for appellee.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

DICKENSON, Judge.

The assignments of error pursued in the defendant's brief relate to rulings on evidence admitting testimony of events subsequent to the date of injury, the charge on this evidence and a charge on the standard of care required of the defendant.The plaintiff's claims of proof necessary for a consideration of these assignments are as follows: The defendant operated a hotel in New Haven, and on August 27, 1942, and for a long time prior thereto the plaintiff occupied one room in the hotel.On August 27, he was bitten by a rat while lying in bed in the night season.There were numerous ratholes in the baseboard of the room, prior to this date; and he had frequently seen rats in the room before he was bitten and had called the manager's attention to the fact.On the night he was bitten the door and windows in his room were closed and it was impossible for rats to enter through them.On the day following the defendant covered the ratholes with tin and thereafter the plaintiff, who continued to occupy the room, was never troubled with rats entering it.

The defendant claimed that its hotel was located in a highly industrialized section immediately adjacent to main-line railroad tracks; that it catered to persons of moderate means; that it employed maids to clean every room daily and a housekeeper to inspect their work; that it had employed, purely as a preventive measure, a reliable ‘exterminator’ company which inspected the hotel monthly and pursued the usual methods, such as traps and poison, to keep rats from the hotel; that this company never received complaints of rats being in the hotel; and finally, that the plaintiff was not bitten by a rat and, whether he was or not, the defendant was not negligent in view of the type of hotel, its location, rates and the means taken to keep it free of vermin.

The plaintiff testified on direct examination that the defendant had made some structural changes in his room after the date he was bitten.He was asked what the defendant did, and objection was made by the defendant on the ground that such evidence was only admissible to prove control, which it admitted.The plaintiff then claimed the question solely to prove control and the court admitted it for that purpose but not on the question of liability.The defendant took an exception and the plaintiff then testified that the defendant covered the holes, where it was claimed the rats had entered, with tin.

Where control of premises is one of the issues in a case, such evidence is admissible to prove it.Vinci v. O'Neill, 103 Conn. 647, 652, 131 A. 408;Aprile v. Colonial Trust Co., 118 Conn. 573, 580, 173 A. 237;2 Wigmore, Evidence, 3dEd., p. 158.The objection of the defendant to the evidence was not because control of the premises was not in issue but on the ground that, as it was admitting control, the evidence would have no place in the case.The record before us is silent as to the nature of that admission, and we are not in a position to hold that it was so direct and certain that the trial court ought to have regarded it as a judicial admission sufficient in itself to protect the rights of the plaintiff without the production of evidence.9 Wigmore, op. cit., § 2591.Further, the trial court, both at the time of the ruling and in the charge to the jury, stated that the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
22 cases
  • Paige v. Saint Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp., 15866
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1998
    ...modification. Subsequent repairs by an owner on the premises indicates that person's control of the premises. Williams v. Milner Hotels Co., 130 Conn. 507, 510, 36 A.2d 20 (1944) (evidence that defendant hotel operator obstructed ratholes day after plaintiff guest was bit by rat relevant to......
  • Schneider v. Kumpf
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • July 29, 2016
    ...399, 405–406, 51 A.3d 352 (2012). The court went on to stress that “[t]his unremarkable fact is exemplified by Williams v. Milner Hotels Co., 130 Conn. 507, 509, 36 A.2d 20 (1944), in which the plaintiff brought a negligence action against the owner of a hotel with a known rat problem after......
  • Giacalone v. Hous. Auth. of Wallingford
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 18, 2012
    ...range of common-law theories of liability applicable to animal bites. This unremarkable fact is exemplified by Williams v. Milner Hotels Co., 130 Conn. 507, 509, 36 A.2d 20 (1944), in which the plaintiff brought a negligence action against the owner of a hotel with a known rat problem after......
  • Smith v. Town of Greenwich
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 6, 2006
    ...evidence when the defendant's control of the hazardous instrumentality is at issue in the suit. See, e.g., Williams v. Milner Hotels Co., 130 Conn. 507, 510,36 A.2d 20 (1944); Killian v. Logan, 115 Conn. 437, 439, 162 A. 30 (1932). . . . The existence of these exceptions to the general rule......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT