ACCIDENT IN HOTEL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8739, 22 May 1914, Page 9

ACCIDENT IN HOTEL

ACTION AGAINST LICENSEE SUCCEEDS.

A case of interest to hotelkeepers and their patrons was decided by Mr W, G. Riddell, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when His Worship gave his reserved judgment in the civil claim John Nelson v. David Sullivan, licensee of the Caledonian Hotel. The plaintiff, a labourer, 77 years of ago. proceeded against the defendant for recovery oi the sum of £75 as damages for injuries received in defendant’s hotel on February 16th last, through the alleged negligence of defendant’s servant. It appeared that about 6 a.m.. or shortly after, ■on the day in question the 'plaintiff went to defendant’s hotel with a jug for the purpose of getting Somo beer'. There were two doors to the jug and bottle department, and the ordinary door through which customers went to be served was shut Plantiff, however, proceeded through the door opening from the private bat into the jug and bottle department, and 'without warning fell through an open trap-door into a cellar, sustaining injuries which were the subject of the action.

His . Worship remarked that there was some conflict of evidence as to whether plaintiff entered and met with his’ accident before or after 6 a.m., the statutory opening hour for hotels. He pointed out that the barman did not advise any of the three men in the hotel that they could not be served because it was not 6 o’clock, nor did he order them off the premises fn the circumstances the Magistrate thought that it must be held that the premises were open for the sale of liquor, although no liquor had been acfuaEy sold. Plaintiff was, therefore, a person entering defendant’s licensed premises as a customer, and was entitled to the exercise of reasonable care by the occupier to prevent damage from any unusual danger of which the occupier knew, or ought to have known. The defendant’s barman had stated that he saw the plaintiff standing at the door of the jug and bottle department, but did not warn him of the danger from the open trap-door. Possibly he did not expect plaintiff to enter, but His Worship doubted if that error of judgment would exonerate him from his failure to notify plaintiff of his proximity to a dangerous place.' The barman’s failure to warn plaintiff constituted a neglect of duty, which resulted in the accident to plaintiff and consequent liability on the part of defendant. As to the damage claimed, plaintiff was an old man who worked intermittently, and gavo his age as 77 years. His claim was a general one, and under all the circumstances Mr Riddell thought it was excessive. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for £25, with costs amounting to £7 12s. At the hearing. Mr J. F, W. Dickson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. J. McGrath for defendant.