ELEVATOR. A building containing one or more mechanical elevators, especially a warehouse for the storage of grain ; a hoist ing apparatus; a lift ; a car or cage for lift ing and lowering passengers or freight in a hoistway. Cent. Diet.
A landlord who runs an elevator for the use of his tenants and their visitors thereby becomes a common carrier ; Goodsell v. Tay lor, 41 Minn. 207, 42 N. W. 873, 4 L. R. A. 673, 16 Am. St. Rep. 700; ,Morgan v. Saks, 143 Ala. 139, 38 South. 848; Mitchell v. Marker, 62 Fed. 139, 10 C. C. A. 306, 25 L. R. A. 33; Edwards v. Burke, 36 Wash. 107, 78 Pac. 610; Lee v. Knapp & Co., 155 Mo. 610, 56 S. W. 458 ; Fox v. Philadelphia, 208 Pa. 127, 57 Atl. 356, 65 L. R. A. 214; Ober felder v. Doran, 26 Neb. 118, 41 N. W. 1094, 18 Am. St. Rep. 771; Walsh v. Cullen, 235 Ill. 91, 85 N. E. 223, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 911. He is charged with the highest degree of care which human foresight can suggest, both as to the machinery and the conduct of his servants; Marker v. Mitchell, 54 Fed. 637; Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 595, 22 Pac. 266, 5 L. R. A. 498, 13 Am. St. Rep..175. That such a carrier of passengers is not an insurer, but is required to exercise the high est degree of care; Mitchell v. Marker, 62 Fed. 139, 10 •C. C. A. 25 L. R. A. 33; Tousey v. Roberts, 114 N. Y. 312, 21 N. E. 399, 11 Am. St. Rep. 655; Edwards v, Burke, 36 Wash. 107, 78 Pac. 610. Other cases do not subject him to the same responsibility as common carriers ; Edwards v. Building Co., 27 R. I. 248, 61 Atl. 646, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 744, 114 Am. St. Rep. 37, 8 Ann. Cas. 974; Griffen v. Manice, 166 N. Y. 197, 59 N. E. 925, 52 L. R. A. 922, 82 Am. St. Rep. 630; Seaver v. Bradley, 179 Mass. 329, 60 N. E. 795, 88 Am. St. Rep. 384.
Where the owner is in the habit of penult ting a person to accompany freight on an elevator, he owes him the duty of a carrier ; Orcutt v. Building Co., 201 Mo. 424, 99 S. W. 1062, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 929. Where a mu nicipal ordinance imposed upon owners of elevators the duty to employ competent per sons, the owner of an apartment house was held liable for injuries to the child of his tenant, who, finding the elevator unguarded, attempted to run it; Shellaberger v. Fisher,
143 Fed. 937, 75 C. C. A. 9, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 250. A hotel-keeper owes the same duty to persons Visiting his guests, and, in gen eral, to all persons lawfully in the hotel and in the elevator, as to his guesfs; McCracken v. Meyers, 75 N. J. L. 935, 68 Atl. 805, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 290, citing Siggins v. McGill, 72 N. J. L. 263, 62 Atl. 411, 3 L. R. A.i (N. S.) 316, 111 Am. St. Rep. 666.
The right of any person to ride on an ele vator is held to be based on the implied in vitation which the owner is deemed to have extended to all who have business on his premises; such owner must see that the premises are in a reasonable, safe, condition ; the measure of duty is reasonable care and prudence; Griffen v. Manice, 166 N. Y. 197, 59 N. E. 925, L. R. A. 922, 82 Am. St,. Rep. 630; Burgess v. Stowe, 134 Mich. 204, 96 N. W. 29.
-A hotel-keeper is not bound to the same degree of care with respect to his employes as to his guests in operating his elevator. His duty as to them is ascertained by the general rules governing the relation of mas ter and servant. In Illinois, where the pro prietor of an elevator is held to be a carrier of passengers; Hodges v. Percival, 132 Ill. 53, 23 N. -E. 423; Springer v. Ford, 189 430, 59 N. E.. 953, 52 L. R. A. 930, 82 Am. St. Rep. 464; Beidler v. Branshaw, 200 Ill. 425, 65 N. E. 1086; Masonic Fraternity Tem ple Ass'n v. Collins, 210 Ill. 482, 71 N. E. yet where a waitress was injured on a hotel elevator, the proprietor was held not to owe her the duty of a common carrier ; Walsh v. Cullen, 235 Ill. 91, 85 N. E. 223, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 911. To the same effect, Sievers v. Lumber Co., 151 Ind. 642, 50 N. E. 877, 52 N. E. 399 ; McDonough v. Lanpher, 55 Minn. 501, 57 N. W. 152, 43 Am. St. Rep. 541.