Case ID: ga-app_26/html/0742-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Hill, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11880, 11881.
    Bullard et al. v. Rolader (two cases).
    Decided May 2, 1921.
    (Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court.)
    Actions for damages; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Eeid. June 12, 1920.
    Mrs. Bolader was injured by the fall of an elevator in which she was a passenger, while a guest in a hotel, and she sued for damages on account of pain and suffering, and obtained a verdict for $5,000. Her husband, in a separate action, tried at the same time, recovered for loss of her services. There were separate motions for a new trial and separate bills of exceptions in the two cases, and both cases were heard in this court together. Mrs. Bolader testified that when she came to herself at the place where she was taken off the elevator she was drawn double, her back was bent, and her left foot and leg were twisted around, and the top of the foot was “on the bottom where the bottom should be;” that she was taken to a hospital, where her foot was “ kind of straightened around” and a plaster east was placed'around her leg and ankle; that when she was taken from the hospital about a month later she was still drawn double, and had a strained back, and that until and at the time of testifying (about a year later) she suffered across the small of her back and from her ankle, and was a nervous wreck, and that her foot continued turned to one side and she limped and could not walk straight, and could not without suffering stand on it, as she was required to do in her trade of milliner; that her back and her foot and leg would give out when she stood for a short time; and that'before the injury she was in good health and none of these conditions existed. Her physician testified that the injury to the foot might “very likely cause permanent trouble,” but he “would not say positively so, because some do recover quite completely from such injury;” and that the injury would tend to shock the nervous system.
   Hill, J.

T. Tlie lessee of a building in which he conducts a hotel and operates an elevator for the transportation of his guests to and from different floors of the building is required, in the operation of the elevator for this purpose, to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety of the guests while they are getting on and off and are riding upon the elevator. This rule of diligence is not limited to the actual technical operation of the machine, but includes such examination, inspection, and repair of its physical and mechanical parts as is necessary to keep and maintain it in a fit and proper condition for safe operation. Where a guest injured in the operation of the elevator sues the lessee for damages, alleging that the injury was caused by the defective condition of the elevator or negligence in its operation, on proof of the injury a presumption of negligence arises against the defendant. Helmly v. Savannah Office Building Co., 13 Ga. App. 498 (79 S. E. 364).

2. As between lessor and lessee, in the absence of contract, the lessor is ■ required to make repairs to the leased property, rendered necessary by natural wear' and tear; yet when the leased property contains an elevator which is used by the lessee in the conduct of his business, he is responsible for an injury caused by the defective condition of the elevator or by its negligent operation. This is especially true as applicable to the proprietor of a hotel and his guests. Whether the lessee has exercised the degree of care required by law, in the maintenance and operation of the elevator in the particular case, is a question of fact to be determined by the jury.

3. While the amount of the verdict, complained of ‘as excessive, under the evidence is large ($5,000), this court cannot say that it is “ so excessive as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.” Civil Code (1910), § 4399.

4. The charge of the court was exhaustive, fair, and correct as to all the issues made by the pleadings and the evidence; and the verdict is amply supported. The refusal to grant a new trial was right.

Judgments affirmed..

Stephens, J., concurs. JenJoms, P. J., disqualified.

James L. Anderson, John T. Pearson, for plaintiffs in error.

Hewlett & Dennis, John 8. Highsmith, contra.