Featherstone v. Dessert, 24163.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1933
• Docket Number: 24163.
• Citation: 173 Wash. 264,22 P.2d 1050
• Parties: FEATHERSTONE v. DESSERT et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

22 P.2d 1050

173 Wash. 264

FEATHERSTONE v. DESSERT et al.

No. 24163.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

June 6, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; R. M. Webster, Judge.

Action by C. L. Featherstone against Victor Dessert and Louise Dessert, copartners. Judgement for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Joseph A. Albi, of Spokane, for appellants.

Richard S. Munter and Justin C. Maloney, both of Spokane, for respondent.

STEINERY Justice.

This is an action to recover for the loss of a diamond ring, a watch and chain, a penknife, and a small amount of cash by plaintiff while a guest of the Pacific Hotel in Spokane, owned and operated by defendants. Trial Before the court, without a jury, resulted in findings and conclusions in favor of plaintiff. From a judgment entered thereon defendants appeal.

Respondent was a traveling man of about twenty years' experience and as such had stopped at the Pacific Hotel on various occasions. On June 10, 1931, he registered at the hotel and subsequently resided there continually until August 12th of the same year, at first occupying a room on the third floor and later one on the second. On the evening of June 26, 1931 he was wearing a diamong ring and was displaying it to a friend in the lobby, in the presence of others. At about 8:30 in the evening he went to his room and undressed to take a bath. The bathroom was a few doors away from his own room. He removed the ring and put it in his trousers' pocket in a coin purse, as was his custom on such occasions. On going to the bathroom he locked the door of his own room. After bathing he returned to his private room and retired. The next morning he discovered that his trousers' pockets had been rifled and the valuables above mentioned stolen. As an affirmative defense to the action, appellants pleaded compliance with the 'Act to protect hotel keepers,' etc. which is chapter 216, p. 587, Laws of 1929. Section 2 of the act, so far as it is pertinent to our present inquiry reads as follows: 'Whenever the proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee, or manager of any hotel, lodging house or inn shall provide a safe or vault for the safekeeping of any money, bank notes, jewelry, precious stones, ornaments, railroad mileage books or tickets, negotiable securities or other valuable papers, bullion, or other valuable property of small compass belonging to the guests, boarders or lodgers of such hotel, lodging house or inn, and shall notify the guests, boarders or lodgers thereof by posting a notice in three or more public and conspicuous places in the office, elevators, or public rooms, or in the public parlors of such hotel, lodging house or inn, stating the fact that such safe or vault is provided in which such property may be deposited; and if such guests, boarders or lodgers shall neglect to deliver such property to the person in charge of such office, for deposit in the safe or vault, the proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee or manager, whether individual, partnership or corporation, of such hotel, lodging house or inn shall not be liable for any loss or destruction of any such property, or any damage thereto, sustained by such guests, boarders or lodgers, by negligence of such proprietor, keeper, owner, operator, lessee or manager, or his, her, their or its employees, or by fire, theft, burglary, or any other cause whatsoever.' (Italics ours.)

The answer alleged specifically that three notices, in the form required by the statute, were posted in more than three of its public rooms. The immediate question with which we are here concerned does not involve the sufficiency of the contents of the notices, but only whether they were posted in the places required by the statute; in other words, whether they were posted, if at all, in public rooms.

According to the plat filed as an exhibit in the case, the hotel is rectangular in shape.

The outside dimensions are not shown by the record, but, according to the scale shown by the map, it appears to be approximately seventy-four feet east and west by forty-seven feet north and south. On the second, third and fourth floors of the hotel there is a space just west of the center line measured north and south. This space is about thirty feet in length along its east walls and about twenty-three feet in length along its west walls. It is also about eleven and one-half feet in width along its south end and six feet in width along its north end. The difference between the east and west, and also the north and south, dimesnsions comes about from the fact that the elevator shaft, six feet by seven feet in floor area, is located in the northwest corner of the space considered as a complete rectangle. A hallway four feet wide, and extending east and west, bisects the building and also the space to which we have just referred. The entrance to the elevator is from its east side. The space immediately in front, or east, of the elevator is thus six feet by seven feet; to the right, or south, of the elevator the space is twelve feet by twenty-three feet. Leading into this widened space from either side of it is the four-foot hall above referred to. At the south end of the widened space is a stairway leading to the floors above and below. Bordering the entire space and the bisecting hall are walls.

The evidence preponderates to the effect, and the court so found, that the notices, in proper form, were posted on the second, third, and fourth floors on the panels which form the outside of the elevator shaft, and around the corner from the entrance thereto, that is, on its south side, but in full view of those who used either the elevator or stairway. In the office a copy of the Innkeepers' Act was posted on the wall back of the clerk's counter or desk; this, however, could not be read by one standing in front of the counter. On the register which guests, including the respondent, signed was a printed notice, reading: 'All money, jewelry and other valuables should be left at the office. Otherwise the Management will not be Responsible for Any Loss.' No notices other than the copy of the act were posted in the office, or in the elevator, or in any public parlor of the hotel. Respondent testified that he never saw the notices or the printed matter on the register, nor read the copy of the act posted in the office. The hotel kept a suitable iron safe for the safekeeping of valuables.

The posting of a copy of the act in the back of the office where it could not be read by guests clearly was not a compliance with the statute. Nor did the notice printed on the hotel register constitute compliance. Gillett v. Waldorf Hotel Co., 136 Wash. 615, 241 P. 14; Beale on Innkeepers and Hotels, § 418, p. 277.

The question then remains whether the posting of the notices on the sides of the elevator shaft constitutes a sufficient compliance with the statute. This, in turn, depends upon whether the enlarged space around and about the elevator constitutes 'a room' within the meaning of the act.

It is the rule in this state that the innkeeper cannot exempt himself from liability except upon a strict compliance with the statute, and that the notice required by the statute must be given exactly as provided. Watt v. Kilbury, 53 Wash. 446, 102 P. 403; ...