Florence Hotel Co. v. Bumpus

• Citation: 194 Ala. 69,69 So. 566
• Decision Date: 13 May 1915
• Docket Number: 40
• Parties: FLORENCE HOTEL CO. v. BUMPUS
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

69 So. 566

194 Ala. 69

FLORENCE HOTEL CO. v. BUMPUS

No. 40

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 13, 1915

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E.C. Crowe, Judge.

Action by J.L. Bumpus against the Florence Hotel Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 449, Acts 1911. Affirmed.

The complaint is as follows:

Count 1. "Plaintiff claims of defendant corporation the sum of $_____ damages, for that *** defendant was engaged in the business of running and operating a public hotel for the accommodation of guests in Birmingham, Ala., and plaintiff was on said date a guest at said hotel, and he had the use and control of a private room as said guest; and on said date defendant's agent or servant, while acting in the line and scope of his employment, wrongfully entered plaintiff's room and took therefrom the baggage or personal property belonging to plaintiff, and as a proximate consequence of said act, plaintiff was greatly humiliated and annoyed."

Count 2. Same as 1, down to and including the words "guest at said hotel," and adds: "As such guest defendant owed him the duty of treating him in respectful and gentlemanly manner, but on said date defendant breached said duty, in this: That defendant's agents or servants, while acting in the line or scope of their employment, wrongfully entered plaintiff's room and took therefrom all his baggage and wearing apparel, and wrongfully disturbed plaintiff by calling him at or near midnight, over the telephone connected with said building and said room, and demanding that he come to the office; and plaintiff alleges that he was insulted and humiliated by said act of defendant's said agents or servants, and was damaged as foresaid."

Count 3. Same as 2, except that it alleges that defendant's servants or agents willfully or intentionally committed said trespasses and insulted said plaintiff as aforesaid.

F.E Blackburn, of Birmingham, for appellant.

L.J Cox, of Birmingham, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Suit by appellee against appellant for recovery of damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while a guest in the hotel operated by defendant, on account of the unlawful conduct of the agents or servants of the defendant company while acting within the line and scope of their authority.

The complaint contained three counts. They each state an action on the case, for breach of a duty imposed by law, and growing out of the relation of innkeeper and guest. Beale on Innkeepers and Hotels, §§ 281, 282; Stanley v Bercher, 78 Mo. 245; 16 A. & E.Ency.Law (2d Ed.) 526. It is clear that each count proceeds upon the principle of respondeat superior in imputing liability to the defendant corporation, as neither charges any corporate act, but charges wrongful conduct on the part of defendant's agents or servants while acting within the line or scope of their employment. Billingsley v. Nashville, C. & St. L Ry., 177 Ala. 342, 58 So. 433; So. Ry. Co. v. Hanby, 166 Ala. 641, 52 So. 834; 7 Labatt, M. & S. (2d Ed.) § 2522. The case of Cen. Ga. Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 140 Ala. 581, 37 So. 387, cited by appellant's counsel, is therefore without application here.

"The obligation of an innkeeper to care for his guest is imposed by law, and necessarily results from the admittance of the guest to the inn. There is no need of a contract between the parties. As soon as the relation of host and guest is established, the rights and duties of both parties to the relation are at once fixed." Beale on Innkeepers and Hotels, § 111.

"In the absence of a special contract, as is authorized, the rights of guests, and the liability of the keeper, remain as at common law." 6 Mayf.Dig. 443.

An interesting and instructive discussion of the respective rights and duties and responsibilities growing out of this relation, as at common law, is found in the opinion of the court of last resort of the state of New York in the case of De Wolf v, Ford, 193 N.Y. 397, 86 N.E. 527, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 860, 127 Am.St.Rep. 969, from which we quote the following:

"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."

After stating that no "hard and fast" rule can be laid down as to what in every case would be reasonable conduct on the part of the innkeeper in claiming access to the room of the guest, and recognizing his right to do so in the enforcement of reasonable rules and regulations for the proper conduct of his business, and in certain emergencies, the opinion proceeds:

"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 ghost 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 bring upon him physical discomfort or distress of mind."

It was held in that case that the invasion of the plaintiff's room and the insulting treatment she was subjected to was a violation of the duty owing to plaintiff, and entitled her to recovery for her injured feelings and humiliation. See, also, 22 Cyc. 1080, and Clancy v. Barker, 131 F. 161, 66 C.C.A. 469, 69 L.R.A. 653, for an interesting review of the authorities.

It is insisted that the complaint claims damage only for mental anguish, and under the authority of W.U.T. Co. v Wright, 169 Ala. 104, 53 So. 95, where no actual damages are...