| Show HANDED D WN ON IN CASE Of LEVATOR MISHAP I verses Judgment Given I Three Plaintiffs I. I lENGTHY DOCUMENT t 1 I Ward rd to E. E H. H Berg Is I V I Affirmed thc longest opinion ever eyer writ writ- 3 tY y the supreme court of ot Utah 1 11 lat tribunal on Tuesday handed o n a an ap opinion in an action to tover tover ver dama damages es for personal In- In ir lr es es' caused by the fall of an ele- ele al ator r In the Newhouse r hotel owned ad operated b by the Bonneville Hol Ho- Ho l 1 company in Salt Lake in which j Reverses reverses erses the judgment of the h rd district court in the cases of tr Glenna A. A Sutton Button Mrs Ruth fluth no and Mrs Estella Waters and firms the judgment E. E H. H erg rg The opinion is is by J b a m jor of the court and andas as y yot cour was written V r ustice Samuel R. R Thurman l Irbe four cases by stipulation of parties and consent of the were argued together as aslany aslany lany tany of of the errors relied upon for forIt It eral of the judgments were h in common to all As the thes s were tried separately in the urt below there were man many errors peculiar to each case The Thenon non of ot the court first disposes l he he lie error in common and then eeds to deal with each case sep- sep le ie conclusion of ot the court is aj at the judgments in the Sutton Button se the Snow case and nd the Waters I is should be reversed and re re- re I for a new trial and that judgment in the Berg case be bet I t proved Many lany errors were assigned corn com I o oh to lo all the cases The principal i appears at pe rs to be a mission admission In the complaint that the hotel i nany had knowledge of the de- de cra cs in the cable and cone attach- attach eats charged as negligence of the vator company I OVE NEGLECT In the case of Gertrude Berg i decided by the supreme urt it was held that in order l hold old the elevator company lia- lia Ifor for the injury it was I ry for the plaintiff to prove that I e el levator company which had hadI tailed stalled the cables must know or orI I I ld know of the danger it cre cred creed cre- cre ed ea d and that the hotel company compan not know and upon reasonable could not discover the I Inger nger i fn n view of this holding by the urt tiit tI the tle e admission in the cornI com com- Q I that the hotel company knew th thE danger was urged by the I in these cases as having I effect to show that the eleva- eleva I company was not liable the I eory ory being that if the hotel com com- Gi knew of the danger and put ej elevator to use the Injury uld be attributable to its nce ce and nd not that of ot the eleva- eleva Kompany orn pany I. I it rhe ne' ne law pertaining to admission bs sc made and the effect they have J ion o the party making them Is In the opinion at consider- consider i ll He length and the opinion holds f. f t t tsuch such admissions are fatal to making them unless the se e. e is tried and evidence intro- intro Ic Itce-d Itce without objection and the theBe Be properly submitted to the Jury ion Von a theory adopted by the pars par- par s s 11 The he e court reverses Its Jm 11 to the rule so declared until 0 d deals als with each separate case cause it appears In Jn each case the Instructions were and ander gr er other ether or not the instructions as ven n render the admission made the complaint non EVIDENCE dealing with the errors com com- tUn jin to all the cases the court ds th that t the evidence was sufi suf- suf n t to sustain the verdicts upon i Ich the judgments were founded ii the Sutton case the court Ids ds that as a Jury was not in- in I kited led that the liability of the vator company depended upon ether or not th the elevator com com- 1 was without knowledge of the Continued on page 10 I OPINION HANDED DOWN DOWNIN IN CASE ASE OF ELEVATOR MISHAP Continued from page 1 danger the ni should be tic re TS d anc ari the he case lor lora or ora a new trial In the Snow cas caso tic the court re reversed reversed reversed re- re versed the judgment r for lt substantially the same reason and andt t tile the e cause was remanded likewise for new trial In the Waters Vaters case the judgment was reversed because the court de denied denied de- de nied the elevator company the right I Ito to challenge a Juror the theory of ot the tile trial court being that where here parties are joined in a suit either as plaintiffs or defendants the parties parties par par- ties tie on the same samo side of ot the case must Join in the challenge and are only entitled to the number of or chal- chal enges authorized by the statute to toOne toone toone one party WAS CONTROVERSY The elevator levator company contended that as there was a a. controversy existing between it Jt and the hotel hote company th they y were not nolo on the tile same side and therefore It was en entItled entitled entitled en- en titled to the same number of or challenges chal lenges that It Jt would it would b be entitled to If it it Jt was the only party do defendant d In the the Berg case the court held h ld that the judgment should be af affirmed affirmed at- at firmed that the admission In the tho complaint was waived by the elevator ele eie- eie vator company Inasmuch as the case was tried upon the correct theory of ot the law v establishing the elevator company's liability and was likewise prop properly submitted to tp- tp the Jury by appropriate te Ins In's ruc tion SEPARATE OPINION Justice D. D N N. in a separate separate separate sep sep- arate opinion opinion- dissents from the opinion of t tho the court in the Ber Berg DelS case and Is of opinion that judgment judg judg- judgment ment mont in that case should also be reversed He bases his opinion his opinion upon upon the fact tact as s he views Jt It t that tha the thc Instruction as to knowledge of the elevator evator company and lack of knowledge of t the hotel company of the danger charged In the com complaint cpm cpm- plaint was not riot sufficient compliance compliance compU- compU ance with the rule announced by bythe the court In the Gertrude Be Beg BerS S' S de dc- cislon Justice also disagrees with th the majority opinion concerning the rejection by the tae trial court ot of the evidence offered by the elevator company company as to the insufficiency of ot the safety devices used by the hotel c company Justl Justi Justice e Samuel R. R Thurman who wrote the majority opinion was o of ot oto o opinion that the evidence rejected was l and ther therefore fore the they trial court did not err In not notre re rejecting rejecting re- re it It while Justice is of ot the contrary opinion Mr Justice Cherry is of at opinion that all of at the Judgments sh should uld o be bo affirmed Ho lie disagrees with the prevailing to the Stu- Stu ton case and the Snow case on questions pertaining to the tho knowledge knowledge knowledge knowl knowl- edge of the elevator elo company of or orthe the danger cr created and lack of or knowledge of at the hotel company of such danger As to the Waters Vaters case c he Is of ot oi that the refusal of or orthe the trial court to allow the elevator elevator elevator eleva eleva- tor company to challenge a Juror when the hotel company compan refused to Join In the challenge was proper In view of at the language of ot the Utah statute relating to peremptory chal chal- lenges |
