Dixon v. Hotel Tutwiler Operating Co.

• Decision Date: 14 January 1926
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 435
• Citation: 214 Ala. 396,108 So. 26
• Parties: DIXON v. HOTEL TUTWILER OPERATING CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

108 So. 26

214 Ala. 396

DIXON v. HOTEL TUTWILER OPERATING CO.

6 Div. 435

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 14, 1926

Rehearing Denied April 8, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge.

Action for damages by Walter E. Dixon against the Hotel Tutwiler Operating Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Rudulph & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Coleman Coleman, Spain & Stewart, of Birmingham, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The suit was for damages and was tried on count 2 of the complaint. It was brought by a guest and against the hotel for humiliation, worry, insult, fright, and disturbing his rest and comfort during the night.

The evidence shows that plaintiff and wife were guests of the hotel in question conducted by defendant, and that some servant or agent of the defendant, while acting in the line and scope of his employment, as alleged in said count interrupted the guests under the circumstances detailed by the evidence and in the respects indicated by the several witnesses. It is also without dispute that plaintiff was lawfully occupying the room assigned to him in compliance with all of defendants' reasonable regulations; had violated no rule; and was guilty of no impropriety as a guest of the hotel.

The learned trial judge instructed the jury in his general charge as follows:

"Under the law it is the duty of one operating a public hotel, that is, for the reception and entertainment of guests, not to by their agents or officers subject them to offensive and insulting conduct and language, and the complaint alleges, among other things, that they did do so in violation of that duty, and that the defendant's servants or agents, while acting in the line and scope of their employment, did do these things as alleged in count 2 of the complaint, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a proximate result thereof.

"Now, the law also says that a hotel, a person operating a hotel or an inn, has the right to make reasonable rules and regulations for the conduct of its hotel, such as is reasonably necessary to conduct a hotel that is decent, and in a manner that it is free from improprieties, or lewdness or conduct that is substantially offensive to other guests.

"The law also says that the servant or agent of the hotel having grounds to suspicion that there is any such improprieties or indecencies has the right to make a reasonable investigation to ascertain the existence of such matters or not. But the law further says that those investigations must not be in an insulting and offensive manner." When the delivery of the oral charge was concluded, and before the jury retired the plaintiff's counsel said:

"I want to except to the part where you said the agent or servant of the hotel having a suspicion of immorality--I think he would have to have reasonable grounds for suspicion."

The business of an innkeeper is of a quasi public character, invested with its appropriate and well-recognized privileges, duties, and burdens. De Wolf v. Ford, 86 N.E. 527, 530, 193 N.Y. 397, 403, 127 Am.St.Rep. 969, 973 (21 L.R.A.[ N.S.] 860); 17 A.L.R. 139. In this leading case it is said:

"*** The innkeeper holds himself out as able and willing to entertain guests for hire, and, in the absence of a specific contract, the law implies that he will furnish such entertainment as the character of his inn and reasonable attention to the convenience and comfort of his guests will afford. If the guest is assigned to a room upon the express or implied understanding that he is to be the sole occupant thereof during the time that it is set apart for his use, the innkeeper retains a right of access thereto only at such proper times and for such reasonable purposes as may be necessary in the general conduct of the inn or in attending to the needs of the particular guest. *** It is equally clear that for the purpose of enabling the innkeeper to fulfill his express or implied contract to furnish his guest with such convenience and comfort as the inn affords, he and his servants must have such access to the room at all such reasonable times as will enable him to fulfill his duty in that behalf. It is obvious that as to this general right of entry no hard and fast rule can be laid down, for what would be reasonable in a case where a room is occupied by two or more guests, or where access to one room can only be had through another, might be highly unreasonable where a separate room is assigned to the exclusive use of a single guest. It is also manifestly proper and necessary that an innkeeper should have the right to make and enforce such reasonable rules as may be designed to prevent immorality, drunkenness, or any form of misconduct that may be offensive to other guests, or that may bring his inn into disrepute, or that may be radically inconsistent with the generally recognized proprieties of life. To these reserved rights of the innkeeper the guest must submit. But the guest also has affirmative rights which the innkeeper is not at liberty to willfully ignore or violate. When a guest is assigned to a room for his exclusive use, it is his for all proper purposes and at all times until he gives it up. This exclusive right of use and possession is subject to such emergent and occasional entries as the innkeeper and his servants may find it necessary to make in the reasonable discharge of their duties; but these entries must be made with due regard to the occasion and at such times and in such manner as are consistent with the rights of the guest. One of the things which a guest for hire at a public inn has the right to insist upon is respectful and decent treatment at the hands of the innkeeper and his servants. That is an essential part of the contract whether it is express or implied. This right of the guest necessarily implies an obligation on the part of the innkeeper that neither he nor his servants will abuse or insult the guest, or indulge in any conduct or speech that may unnecessarily

...