Chase Rand Corp. v. Pick Hotels Corp. of Youngstown, 35123

• Decision Date: 11 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 35123,35123
• Citation: 167 Ohio St. 299,147 N.E.2d 849,4 O.O.2d 345
• Parties: , 4 O.O.2d 345 CHASE RAND CORP., Appellee, v. PICK HOTELS CORP. OF YOUNGSTOWN, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 299

167 Ohio St. 299

147 N.E.2d 849, 4 O.O.2d 345

CHASE RAND CORP., Appellee, v. PICK HOTELS CORP. OF YOUNGSTOWN, Appellant.

No. 35123.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Feb. 11, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An innkeeper is liable as at common law for the loss on his premises of a guest's property, except as such liability is modified by Sections 4721.01, 4721.02 and 4721.03, Revised Code. (Paragraph two of the syllabus of Rarrick v. Browne, 151 Ohio St. 276, 85 N.E.2d 386, approved and followed.)

2. Safe deposit boxes of the type commonly found in banks and varying in size from 3 by 5 by 22 inches to 10 by 12 by 22 inches, each of which requires two keys to open, one retained by the depositary and the other given to the depositor of property therein, are a 'metal safe or vault' within the meaning of Section 4721.01, Revised Code, and are 'suitable' for the deposit of those items of property enumerated in such section.

3. Under the provisions of Section 4721.02, Revised Code, an innkeeper is not required to receive for deposit in such safe or vault items enumerated in Section 4721.01, Revised Code, in excess of $500 in value, and he is not liable for such property exceeding such value, whether received or not, in the absence of a special arrangement.

4. An innkeeper may, by special arrangement with a guest, receive for deposit in such safe or vault any property upon such terms as may be agreed upon, and the innkeeper is liable for the loss of any such property so received, where the loss is caused by the theft by or negligence of the innkeeper or his servant.

5. An innkeeper is not liable for the loss of goods deposited with him by a guest, where the loss is occasioned by the want of ordinary care on the part of the guest, and whether the guest has exercised such care is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.

6. Where a guest deposits with an innkeeper a case containing precious stones of the value of $32,000, the guest's failure to disclose to the innkeeper the value of such contents is negligence as a matter of law precluding recovery from the innkeeper, in the event of loss, of any amount of such value in excess of that limited by Sections 4721.02 and 4721.03, Revised Code.

This action was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County to recover damages for the loss of a brief case allegedly containing jewelry, precious stones and diamonds valued at $32,292.30, which was deposited by an employee of the plaintiff with the defendant for safekeeping and which was not redelivered on demand.

The plaintiff, appellee herein, is a corporation organized in the state of New York and engaged in the business of buying, processing, and selling diamonds and other precious stones. It employs salesmen who travel throughout the United States to display and sell such diamonds and precious stones. The defendant, appellant herein, is an Ohio corporation operating and maintaining a hotel, called Hotel Pick-Ohio, in Youngstown, Ohio.

The employee, Mandell E. Lewis, according to the special custom of his trade of traveling salesman displaying and selling precious stones, carried with him a case similar to a brief case and with a special lock and containing boxes and wallets which held parcels of loose and polished diamonds and rings. The case was made of leather and was 14 by 17 by about 8 to 9 inches in size.

Loose diamonds were carried in the case in a special leather wallet, and rings were contained in four or five ring cases about seven by ten by one and one-quarter inches in size.

On Friday, October 29, 1954, Lewis registered as a guest of the hotel. He did not disclose to the room clerk or any other employee of the hotel that he was a jewelry salesman. During Friday afternoon, he called on various prospective customers in Youngstown and in the late afternoon returned to the hotel. Lewis, according to his testimony, went directly to the cashier's cage and said to the employee therein, 'I would like to put my jewel case in the vault.' He showed the employee the case, and she handed Lewis a 'safety deposit envelope' which bore a number and the following printed wording:

%'SAFETY DEPOSIT ENVELOPE/

'A check

'3002

'This check to be signed when package is deposited.

'In accepting this envelope and contents for safekeeping, we assume on liability other than that provided for in the Innkeeper's Act of this state, which has limited our liability so that in no event can we be liable for more than the amount specified in said act. The employee accepting this envelope has no authority to accept same if the contents are valued at more than the amount specified in said act.

'The contents of this envelope do not exceed a value of $ .....

'Signature of depositor ........

'Received by ........ Date ..... 19 ..

'Do not detach until package is called for

'Delivery only to owner after signature on duplicate check 'B' is witnessed and compared.

'B Depositor's check

'3002

'This check to be signed only when package is called for and in the presence of the clerk on duty.

'Signature of depositor ........

'Delivered by ........ Date ..... 19..

'Package will be delivered only to party originally depositing it, whose signature appears on duplicate check on package.'

Lewis signed the 'A check' on the envelope but did not fill in the space provided for the valuation of the parcel. The cashier tore off the 'B depositor's check,' handed it to Lewis and called a bellboy who affixed the envelope to the brief case with staples, carried the case into a small room or vault back of the cashier's cage, and deposited it upon the floor therein. Lewis accompanied the bellboy to see that the case was placed in the room. This room was approximately five feet deep, seven or eight feet wide and seven or eight feet high. There were two sets of steel doors that gave access to the room. The inner door consisted of two parts that folded together and were locked with a key. The outer door was equipped with a combination lock. Inside the room against one wall was a bank of safe deposit boxes or vaults; 68 of these boxes were three inches high, five inches wide and 22 inches deep; two other boxes were six inches high, ten inches wide and 22 inches deep; and two others were ten and onehalf inches wide, 12 inches high and 22 inches deep. Each of these boxes required two keys to open it, one retained by the management and the other given to the depositor of the property, in the same manner as safe deposit boxes are operated by banks. At the time of the deposit of the brief case by Lewis, all the boxes were in good working order. There is no question that Lewis' brief case was too large to fit into any safe deposit box. The inside door to the room was never closed, the outside door was frequently left open, and the combination lock was not then operating. Stationery and supplies used by the hotel and some checked luggage were stored in the room, and authorized employees had access thereto. Guests placing valuable packages in the safe deposit boxes also had access, when accompanied by an employee.

On Monday, November 1, 1954, Lewis presented the 'B depositor's check' and requested the return of the case, but search failed to find it. On the date of the trial, it had not been recovered.

The evidence is sharply conflicting in relation to the conversation at the time of the deposit of the 'jewel case' with the cashier. She contends that it was handed to her as a 'brief case,' and she was not informed that it contained jewelry.

Statements by Lewis at the time the brief case was determined to be missing directly contradict his account of the conversation at the time of the deposit.

The defendant offered evidence tending to show that it had complied with the provisions of Section 4721.01, Revised Code, in that it had in the hotel 'a metal safe or vault in good order suitable for the custody of * * * jewelry, articles of gold and silver manufacture,' and 'precious stones'; that it kept on the doors of the sleeping rooms used by the guests suitable locks or bolts, and on the transoms and windows of such rooms suitable fastenings; and that it displayed a copy of this section of the Revised Code in not less than ten conspicuous places.

Defendant denies the claim of plaintiff that the room in which the brief case was deposited was a 'vault' within the meaning of the statute, and that it was negligent in any way and claims that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

The case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount claimed, and judgment was rendered thereon.

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was affirmed, one judge dissenting.

The cause is before this court on the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Manchester, Bennett, Powers & Ullman and John F. Elsaesser, Youngstown, for appellant.

William E. Pfau and William E. Pfau, Jr., Youngstown, for appellee.

BELL, Judge.

In paragraph two of the syllabus in Rarrick v. Browne, 151 Ohio St. 276, 85 N.E.2d 386, 387, this court held:

'An innkeeper is liable as at common law for the loss on his premises of a guest's property, except as such liability is modified by Sections 5981, 5982 and 5983, General Code [now Sections 4721.01, 4721.02 and 4721.03, Revised Code].'

These sections of the Code read as follows:

Section 4721.01. 'An innkeeper, whether a person, partnership, or corporation, having in his inn a metal safe or vault in good order suitable for the custody of money, bank notes, jewelry, articles of gold and silver manufacture, precious stones, personal ornaments, railroad mileage books or tickets, negotiable or valuable papers, and bullion, and keeping on the doors of the sleeping rooms used by his guests suitable locks or bolts, and on the transoms and windows of such rooms suitable fastenings, and keeping a copy of this section printed in distinct type conspicuously suspended in...