Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action at the instance of Mrs Flora Clark or Greenlees against the Royal Hotel, Dundee, Limited, carrying on business as hotelkeepers and proprietors of the Royal Hotel, Dundee, in which she claimed damages for the death of her son, who was fatally injured while staying in the hotel by falling into the well of a lift.

The lift, which was worked by hydraulic pressure, consisted of a cage which was worked by an attendant up and down a well extending from the basement to the upper storeys. Access to the lift was obtained through collapsible doors on each landing, which were kept locked, and which in order to be opened required to be slid from the right hand side of the lift (looking towards it) to the left. When not in use the cage was left at the bottom of the well, and had to be brought up to the floor at which it was required. This was done by pulling a rope running within the well on the left-hand side as one entered it. Before this rope could be reached by an attendant standing on any of the landings the collapsible door had to be thrown wide open. There was no light in the well, and an electric light, which was provided inside the cage, could only be switched on by the attendant after he had entered the cage. The defenders did not employ a regular attendant to work the lift. It was attended to by the boots and by the waiters in the hotel.

The pursuer averred—“(Cond. 4) The said deceased William Greenlees arrived at the defenders hotel on the evening of Friday, 8th April 1904, and engaged a bedroom for the night. He had not previously resided in the hotel and was not acquainted with the premises. (Cond. 5) About midnight or shortly thereafter the said deceased William Greenlees proceeded to the entrance to the lift on the first floor in order that he might be taken up to his bedroom in one of the upper storeys. At his request to be taken up, a waiter named William Spill, who had a key for the lift, attended to him. Spill unlocked and slid open the collapsible door, and pulled the rope with the intention of raising the cage from the basement to the level of the floor on which they were standing. There was no light in the well, and to one standing at the entrance to the lift the well was obscure. Greenlees received no warning from Spill that the cage was not in position to receive passengers, and seeing the gate thrown back he assumed, as he was entitled to do, that it had been opened to admit him to the cage. He accordingly stepped forward and fell downwards into the well until he met the roof of the cage, which was but a few feet below the level of the floor on which he was standing. His right leg slipped over the front of the cage into the recess above described, and as the cage ascended it caught the leg at the knee and crushed it between the roof and the front wall of the well at the point where the wall projects at the top of the recess. The ascent of the lift did not stop until the top of the roof had reached a few inches above the level of the floor, by which time Greenlees had received very severe injuries. Some time elapsed before he was extricated from the lift. He was thereafter removed to the Dundee Royal Infirmary, where he died about 6·30 on the same morning, viz., Saturday, 9th April 1904. … (Cond. 6) The said accident, and

Page: 318↓

the consequent death of the said William Greenlees, were solely due to the culpable fault and negligence of the defenders or of those in their employment and for whom they are responsible … in respect that the said entrance to the lift was not sufficiently lighted. No light of any kind was provided in the interior of the lift, and the lighting of the hall near it was not sufficient to allow anyone, and specially one to whom the arrangements of the hotel were entirely novel and unknown, to observe that the lift was not in its place when he stepped into the well … (Cond. 7) Further, … the rope in the well by which the lift was worked was on the left-hand side of the attendant as he stood facing the lift, and could not be reached by him without opening the gate, the effect of which was that before touching the rope he had to throw the gate wide open. It is the universal practice in all lifts to guard the entrance to them by a collapsible lattice door, which can be opened only when the cage is in position to receive passengers. Further, it is the universal practice in the construction of such lifts to place the elevating rope at the side from which the door opens so that the door may be kept so far closed as entirely to prevent the entrance of passengers until the cage is in place. Thus the deceased on the door being opened was entitled to rely on the cage being in position for him to step into with safety. … (Cond. 8) Further, it was the defenders' duty to have employed an attendant skilled in the working of lifts and the care of passengers travelling in them to work the said lift.… It was gross carelessness on the part of the said attendant to open the gate when the light was insufficient as aforesaid without warning the deceased that the lift was not in position, and his said carelessness caused the said William Greenlees' death. The said William Spill was a waiter in the defenders' employment and not a lift-attendant sufficiently skilled in working a lift and in the duty of looking after the safety of lift passengers. (Cond. 9) The said William Spill, for whom the defenders are responsible, was in fault ( a) in opening the gate of the lift in such a manner as to leave the shaft unguarded, and ( b) in failing to give the deceased warning when he opened said gate that the cage was not in its proper position. He gave no warning of any kind to the deceased. But for his negligence in not giving warning the acci-would not have occurred.”

The issue proposed was as follows:—“Whether at or about midnight of the 8th and 9th April 1904 the pursuer's son, William Greenlees, in or about the Royal Hotel, Dundee, sustained the injuries in consequence of which he died through the fault of the defenders, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? Damages laid at £1000.”

The defenders denied that they were in fault, and pleaded contributory negligence.

On 17th November 1904 the Lord Ordinary ( Low) disallowed the proposed issue and dismissed the action, holding that the pursuer's statements showed that the deceased had been guilty of contributory negligence.

The pursuer reclaimed, and argued—It was for the jury to say whether there had been contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The fault alleged was a composite one, and the pursuer's averments must be read together and not singly. The accident was due to fault on the part of the defenders in several respects, all of which contributed to the accident.

Argued for the respondents—The pursuer's statements showed that the deceased met his death through his own fault. The deceased simply stepped into the darkness and ought not to have done so. There was no duty to light the well in the lift, it was not usual to do so. There was nothing wrong in the construction of the lift or the position of the rope. There was no duty on the part of the attendant to warn passengers. Passengers must exercise ordinary care.

The following authorities were cited during the discussion— Cairns v. Boyd, June 5, 1879, 6 R. 1004; Forsyth v. Ramage & Ferguson, October 25, 1890, 18 R. 21, 28 S.L.R. 26; Jamieson v. Russell & Company, June 18, 1892, 19 R. 898, 29 S.L.R. 790; Fleming v. Eadie & Sons, January 29, 1898, 25 R. 500, 35 S.L.R. 422; Driscoll v. Commissioners of Partick, January 10, 1900, 2 F. 368, 37 S.L.R. 274.