The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-08-13
NEGLIGENCE or INNkEEPERS.

-
Of Appeals NilI beneft the community gen
orally IN personal injury cases In IA
'aSr. which - that Of Morris against Ltn
norman. the court LAYS down what ~ u
eject q new rule Of e, idence NV apply M
the doctrinr of res ipsa lOIuiiuT to s"ii
against innk cspeI-
. lh- defendants WeTr propri"ior- oi
hotel The plaintin was guest overnight
{ While dressing IN hts room The fOlloWinl
morning he MAS struck on the head bN .
large piece 81 plaster which fell from thu
ceiling. ,niii"tinx injuries for which this sal
vas brouRht Ills only testimony was tha
, y hen he awoke IA the morning before the
r~iliuE fell he heard -chi-elling or knOCkins
Aith hammers about the building
There was no dire,t evidence ia explain
tho accident The trial Justice dismissed
the complain al the end vi plaintiff y cass
this decision - reversed 10y the Appellate
Division. JUSTICES Miller. iAushlin aud
clarke faVorinR the reversal. and Justices
lngrahRm aud scott strongly d,ssentIng
aud sustaining the trial court In the pre-
vailinK opinion Justice Miller assumes that
tue slight evidence that repairs were being
made was insufficient To connect that work
With the fall Of the plaster he contends.
however. tha' ~ was sInscient to call upon
the defendant for an explanation. lie de
MES that the case ~ cont rolled by the land .
lord and .ienaut decisions dealing With in
iurtes from defective Railways and siairr.
and hollis that The requirements Of reason
sols care by an innkeeper are greater Than
ihO.. 10 lie exercised by . landlord. In
he ,a-. of Leased PREMISES. a.. observes
With par retained by the landlord for the
Use Of several tenants. a defective Condii ION
might arise or an accident happen for -
variety ot ,.,,.,. over ~bich IN. landIort
Iii h.. M, .on,,oI .h,,h A. nould
.n.,.. ,,,, -, a., ,,,,,,-,,,.,. md ,o, ~h,,h
a.. - -. =, -, ~, -. a..
1919 wv " wv -,
u''e'''e """'"" eA's'e" '"'
l'he '" 'hhig" h'm WIN ho'''e 'ue'"o'
tue IahdIotd uoe- no. nave the opp"I'"h"t
and cannot he rIpeCted 10 eNef1-e mat
constant watchtulnes- which an innkeeper
may exercise. aud which think reasonable
rars Tsauirps hun to s,erui.e for the pro
t.rttun ut his s,te.t.
I,,.tt,s Miller ob-.ry.. thai tb.t. 4. no
,.,..,,t.,I 60, ,,,..,..Iy ~, ,n,. one h,,I
-, ~, -. - -, -, -. t',,,,,,rt 81
20 "' y, ~. " " - ~. :,
~ " =,
'IHeh ~ ""h''e ''eo - 's'u''
apple- here Inc hpplcsiI"h 81 w" siIh
depends upon NO rules OF evidence mrs.
Z ha' fact may lie proved 'ircumstahiiallN
a. Well - directly aud secondly. ihAi where
one party has - ~ his power ia produce
rVid.nc. hi,h the other marty doss MOI
po--r.- huf slight evidence D. needed %
-h,ft m. hu,d.n ,r An .,nlsn,tton on IN.
marty uo.....tny an. evidence Adjoining
-, - ,.,-,t. an,
Plaster docs not ordinArh, isll from properly
constructed "silinss unirs> tho r~liing - out of
repair or There i some adequate eh'rTbal cause
~ there sas an external cause In ths csSe the
islf inference =, iha' 'he dsfendah', we're rspon
,ibis for - snd thrS have Il In th-ir power TO
plain a. u toe Acciasnt SAs due 10 the defective
condition Of The ceiiing the defendants. In the
rher't>e % ihAi wAichhlhr>- Which On lhnEeeprr