COSTLY LIFT ACCIDENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 202, 26 August 1899, Page 5 (Supplement)

COSTLY LIFT ACCIDENT.

HOTEL COMPANY HAVE TO PAY £2500.

An interesting case involving the responsibility of a hotel proprietary for injury sustained by a visitor as a result of the negligence of an employee was decided in Glasgow the other day. The following ac count of the case is from the "Glasgow Herald" of July 7:—

In the Court of Session on Monday evidence was led before the Lord Justice Clerk and a jury in an action by Mrs Elizabeth Steele Parker or Hannay, 20 Huntly Gardens, Billhead, Glasgow, widow of David Hannay, writer in Glasgow, and her daughter Eleanor, against the Grand Hotel Company, Charing Cross, Sauchiehall-strcet, Glasgow. Mrs Hannay concludes for payment of £4000, and her daughter for £2000, as damages for the death of David Hannay, who died on October 21st, 1898, aged 03 years. The pursuers state that during the last 20 years of his life the deceased ay.is deprived of the use of his lower limbs, as the result of a spinal complaiut. OtherAvise he Avas robust and vigorous, aud was constant iv his attendance at business. Out of doors he had to use a carriage and indoors a wheel-chair. On 27th September, 1898, Mr aud Mrs Hannay had au engagement to dine at the Grand Hotel, and for his accommodation one of the wheel-chairs had .been sent to the hotel early in the day. When Mr Hannay arrived at the hotel he was placed in the wheel-chair and taken to the hoist to be raised to the first floor. When the first floor was reached, and before the chair could be altogether withdrawn, the hoist started upwards, and Mr Hannay was severely crushed between the lintel of the door and his own chair. He died, as stated, in consequence of his injuries. The pursuers aver that it was the duty of the defenders so to conduct their business that persons lawfully resorting to the premises might do so without suffering injury; but in breach of that duty the hoist was culpably and negligently put in motion. The pursuers were entirely dependent upon the deceased for subsistence, and they state that the deceased had practically no means except*the annual income which his business as a writer and the audltorship of the B'aculty of Procurators brought him. From these sources his income in recent years amounted to about £1500 per annum. The defenders deny that the deceased was robust and vigorous and in constant attendance at business, but had suffered from paralysis, and was frequently absent from business on account of illness. The defenders explain that they were not informed of Mr Hannay's intended visit; that he was placed in the wheel-chair and then in the luggage hoist by his own servants at his own suggestion. The deceased knew that there was a passenger hoist; and they state that he had no right to travel by the luggage hoist, and in doing so he acted with great negligence and culpability. They deny that deceased was severely crushed as described, or died as a result of the alleged injuries.

The jury were absent about a quarter of an hour, and returned with a unanimous verdict for the pursuers. The damages were assessed at £ISOO to Mrs Hannay, and £700 to Miss Hannay.