Sneed v. Moorehead
Sneed v. Moorehead
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The declaration does not show liability of the defendants for the injury suffered by the plaintiff-. They were under no obligation to have railing, or other protection, around the “ gallery.” The possibility that some one might fall off, was not sufficient-to suggest that a railing should be put there. The situation was known to the plaintiff, and the necessity for caution had presented itself to her, as shown by her putting the light so as to guide her on her return to her room. Her error, resulting in serious hurt, consisted in going on when she found the light gone. Her misfortune is deplored, but reparation cannot be made by despoiling the defendants, who were under no greater obligation to have railing around galleries than other persons who have galleries, and invite visitors to their houses.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Elizabeth Sneed v. Mary Moorehead
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Neckligence. Inn-keeper. Injury to guest. Contributory negligence. The declaration alleged that plaintiff, a guest at a watering-place, occupied a room in a cottage separate from the main hotel, the room being at the end of a gallery five feet high, unprotected by a railing; that on going to supper, it being dark, she left the door open and a light burning, to guide her on returning; that a servant of the hotel closed the door, and, by reason of this, and of the failure by defendants, the proprietors, to provide a railing and lights, plaintiff fell from the gallery and was injured. Held, a demurrer to the declaration was properly sustained, since the defendants' were under no obligation to provide a railing, and plaintiff was negligent in going on despite the absence of the light.