Home/Louisiana Court of Appeal/Bellocq v. Hotel De Soto Co.

Bellocq v. Hotel De Soto Co.

6 Pelt. 279, 1919 La. App. LEXIS 106
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 27, 1919
DocketNO. 8567
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Pelt. 279 (Bellocq v. Hotel De Soto Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bellocq v. Hotel De Soto Co., 6 Pelt. 279, 1919 La. App. LEXIS 106 (La. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

BY: WILLIAM A. BELL, JUDGE:

This is a suit for personal injuries, in which a jury trial resulted in verdict and judgment for plaintiff, Paul >D. Belloeq against defendant, the Hotel De Soto Company, proprieors” of the Hotel De Soto, in Hew Orleans. The damages allowed were $2,666.50, and a judgment in favor of intervenor, Miller Indemnity Underwriters and against plaintiff, in the sum of $166.50.

We find that plaintiff was employed by the Interstate Electric Company, whose place of business was directly opposite the Perdido Street side of the hotel which occupies the entire block-or l/2 block, bounded by Baronne, Carroll, Eerdido and poydras Streets.

On May 10th, 1919, at about 11:30. A'.M., plaintiff was directed by one of his superior co-employees of the Interstate Electric Company to repair an automobile used in the company’s business. This machine was at the time, parked closely to the side-walk, on the hotel side of Carroll Street, about fifty feet- from the corner of Perdido and Carroll Streets. Whi-le engaged in the repair of the car, plaintiff was standing on the side-walk with his back to the hotel and leaning over the open hood of the madhine. In this position, a wooden framed screen fell from the eighth floor window of the hotel, .struck the car and plaintiff a slanting blow, resulting in severe contusions of plaintiff’s scalp, and causing a dent in-the hood of the car. Plaintiff was not rendered unconscious, but for a minute wag, as he say3; "dazed" by the blow, and after bracing himself against the hotel wall, be managed to walk from the- place of the accident to the réar door of the Interstate Electric Company, where his fellow-workmen came to his assistance, and hurried him.in one of the Company's trucks, to a nearby hospital, neither of the doctors who treated him at’the hospital testified in the case, hilt from the evidence it appears that plaintiff suffered severe e.on-. tuai'ons-,and lacerations of the scalp, was detained for treatment ab -td)!) hospital for a week, and continuing to suffer, from [281]*281nervous shock and physical disability, causing a ringing in the ears, irritability and loss of sleep, etc., he v.as net able to return to his work for four weeks longer, nor t'o Ms accustomed heavy work in the shop, for some time later. A nerve specialist whom plaintiff did not consult for over a month after the accident, testifies that he found plaintiff ha-d suffered a concussion of the brain, not of a serious nature, but such as would, and did, yield to proper treatment and rest, and that after seeing plaintiff a second and last time, while under his care, that -plaints ff told him he was feeling very much improved.

We find from X-ray-photographs in the record, and from the radiologist's report thereon, that same "showed "no evidence of. depression of the skull or of fracture or "any signs of bone injury." Vie also find from testimony on b'ehalf-'Of plaintiff, record-admissions tc the effect that examination by a'competent oculist disclosed n'o injuries to plaintiffJs,.eye-sight, but that the headaches and other terns porary sufferings r.ere natural results of the accident.

It is not denied that plaintiff v.as injured in the-manner described in his petition, and after careful examination of the evidence we have concluded that the extent of his injuries were as above set forth. He has also proven conclusively that his financial loss in wages, doctors’ bills, etc., was some §350.50. of which the Millers' Indemnity Underwriters, intervenors herein, have reimbursed him in the sum of §166.50. 'These facts being, established, we are led to the ■ conclusion, vel non, of defendant's liability; and to this /end', v.e must"’determine facts presented by the record.

We find from the evidence that the wire sdreen \-&hich struck-the plaintiff, and caused his injury, was undoubtedly a part of the structure, or equipment, of the Hotel pe^S.pto, property of defendants herein; that it fell from the story windov of the Hotel, and was seen in its dovnward lllii^ht- .‘to-strik.ei the plaintiff a glancing b^ov on the head, [282]*282and to also land upon the hood of the automobile which plaiatifi was repairing. Defendants contend that the verdict and judgment in this case was erroneous, particularly for the reason that the evidence does not establish that it was the defendants' fault which caused the accident. Three \ itnesses of the defendant testify to what might be considered reason?bio inspection of the screens and fastenings throughout the rotel. and to tie precautions usually taken in regard to this kind nf property, as well as to fixtures and equipment of the rotel. Te have no right tc doubt that this testimony is truthful and reliable, but, on tlx piker hand, it is clear from the evidence, and test imony of other witnesses, and from the admission of defendants.' witnesses, that knowledge had been brought, home to the hotel, on more than one oocaslon prior to the accident, of defects in the- screens used by the Oor.peny in jis win,dots. The evidence Is c0ncil;ijive that on at least tv.o or three occasions prior to, and ')• no means reraote from the J.- te of tve accident, leic'ns had fallen, or he..- : blown froi. the windows of th r -tel, and srbsoquenily gatheren ey the Total's chit f engineer, i «va: the ini instate C •r.,p/.ny'o employees, the latter having re.-o,.eo lien fror. out of the street in, end around the locality vK-re ¿I.?'stiff was injured. These f-ots, while testifled'to hj. ü.„ rlaiai'ff 's co-employees, are also confirmed ’oy disinterested 't-i-vse , enqiloyed in the ;■ =i->.hborhood of (larro-ll Stress, .-re->.tOp- • poeite from the 7‘otei, and who "era not connected In any , aj viith the plaintiff or defendant in this case. liability arises from this evidence in particultr, coupled .viti, 1"-' S oJ JhS defendant and it; employees were charged »- 1 th th-.- ' ...l~'¿u oh the perishable c.'ldition of these sere n-.-. arn w" ' h i" e ij.parent defects therein, i>rinr to the >.3dü-i.t arl-i f- in ’ uij case. The fastenings hand springs in f'" p-rticul ■ ,.‘.f ... in question, being "indo of steel, -apjeot t. ' . v.’’ ■.x'£. in. , cause» peculiar • o.l part in'far supei > n -:n "r-part of the Compa..y or it., e- ployei.-í. .

[283]*283Under the doctrine of rea ipsa loquitur, which in our appreciation of the evidence before us is peculiarly applicable to the instant case, it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff herein, to prove such negligence as musx rightly be presumed from evidence conclusively showing that other screens on several occasions prior to the accident had fallen from defendants' building, notwithstanding its previous and- continuous system of supervision. Herbert vs Lake Charles Ice, Light & Water Works Co., 111 La. 522. The case before us was thought by the learned judge of the trial court, as shown by his charges to the jury, to come particularly within the doctrine a Dove mentioned, and we agree with him in its application here. In the case of Lykiardopoulo vs. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co., 127 La., 310. the court found for the plaintiff who was killed by explosion of a boiler tube in the boilers to which he was stoker, holding that defendant and not the plaintiff was charged with the necessary care and inspection of the boilers, neglect as to which need not nave been charged or proven by plaintiff. We quote in part from the language of the court, as follow:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co.
64 L.R.A. 101 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Pelt. 279, 1919 La. App. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellocq-v-hotel-de-soto-co-lactapp-1919.