Gillett v. Waldorf Hotel Co.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 19359. |
| Citation | 136 Wash. 615,241 P. 14 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | GILLETT et ux. v. WALDORF HOTEL CO. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Frater, Judge.
Action by Frank A. Gillett and wife against the Waldorf Hotel Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, with instructions.
James P. H. Callahan, of Hoquiam, for appellants.
A. H Wiseman, of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the court denying recovery in an action to recover for valuables lost while guests of a hotel.
The facts follow: Appellants in August, 1923, registered at respondent's hotel, and were assigned to room 333. Retiring that evening at 10:30 both appellants tried the door of their room to ascertain if it was locked. The door was fitted with what is commonly known as a Yale lock, with a flat key being used for the purpose of entering the room. The lock had what is known as a spring catch, which does not require the use of a key to open the door from the inside. The door was fitted with no other form of lock, and there was no other way by which the door could be locked, bolted, or secured from the inside, which would prevent a person having a key from entering the room.
Before retiring, Mr. Gillett hung over the bathroom door his trousers, which contained a wallet with $90 in money. Mrs Gillett removed from her fingers some diamond rings and laid them on a dresser. Upon arising next morning it was found that both the money and the rings had been taken. Investigation showed that the catch or bolt in the lock had been pushed back and was held by the spring, indicating that it had been unlocked by the use of a key; there being no marks of violence. Complaint was immediately made to the hotel management and detectives were assigned to the case. Investigation was made with regard to the door and the room in general; the detective and manager of the hotel and other persons being in the room that morning.
Upon the trial of the case there was no dispute as to the facts which we have just stated. But respondent, the hotel, sought to exempt itself from liability upon the ground that appellants were guilty of contributory negligence, and upon the further ground that it had complied with section 6862, Rem. Comp. Stat., as follows:
'No hotel keeper, whether individual, partnership or corporation, who constantly has in his hotel a metal safe or suitable vault in good order and fit 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 who keeps on the doors of the sleeping rooms used by guests, locks or bolts, and who keeps posted in each of said sleeping rooms a notice of liability as hereinafter specified, shall be liable for the loss or injury to such property suffered by any guest unless such guest has offered to deliver the same to such hotel keeper for custody in such metal safe or vault and such hotel keeper has omitted or refused to take it and deposit it in such safe or vault for custody and to give such guest a receipt or claim check therefor: Provided, however, that the keeper of any hotel shall not be obliged to receive from any one guest for deposit in such safe or vault any property hereinbefore described exceeding a total value of one thousand dollars and shall not be liable, for any excess of such property, whether received or not: Provided further, such hotel keeper may by special arrangement with a guest receive for deposit in such safe or vault any property upon such terms as they may agree to in writing, but every hotel keeper shall be liable for any loss of the above-enumerated articles of a guest in his inn or hotel after said articles have been accepted for deposit, if caused by the theft or negligence of the hotel keeper or any of his servants.'
We have heretofore held that exemption from liability by virtue of this section can only be had by strict compliance with the statute, and that the notice required by the statute must be given exactly as provided. We have also held that when the relation of innkeeper and guest and the loss of goods have been established, the true rule is that the innkeeper is prima facie liable, and the burden is on him to show such facts as will exonerate him. Watt v. Kilbury, 53 Wash. 446, 102 P. 403.
Both Mr. and Mrs. Gillett testified positively that th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shifflette v. Lilly
... ... or for injury to his person, remains in force, and applies to ... the keeper of a hotel or restaurant in this State; and said ... statute, properly construed, relieves from, or limits, ... 826; Widen v ... Warren Hotel Co., 262 Mass. 41, 159 N.E. 456, 56 A.L.R ... 313; Gillett v. Waldorf Hotel Co., 136 Wash. 615, ... 241 P. 14; Shiman Bros. & Co. v. Nebraska Nat. Hotel Co., ... ...
-
Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co.
... ... statute enacted for his protection. Watt v. Kilbury, ... 53 Wash. 446, 102 P. 403; Gillett v. Waldorf Hotel ... Co., 136 Wash. 615, 241 P. 14; Featherstone v ... Dessert, 173 Wash. 264, 22 P.2d 1050. See, also, Beale ... ...
-
Levesque v. D.C. Hotel.
...277 N.W. 823, 115 A.L.R. 1078; Shiman Bros. & Co. v. Nebraska Nat. Hotel Co., 1943, 143 Neb. 404, 9 N.W.2d 807; Gillett v. Waldorf Hotel Co., 1925, 136 Wash. 615, 241 P. 14. But it is not without significance that the Nebraska court gives a much narrower interpretation of the provision limi......
-
Walls v. Cosmopolitan Hotels, Inc., 1089--III
...Wash. 173, 179, 84 P.2d 681, 119 A.L.R. 788 (1938); Featherstone v. Dessert, 173 Wash. 264, 22 P.2d 1050 (1933); Gillett v. Waldorf Hotel Co., 136 Wash. 615, 241 P. 14 (1925); Watt v. Kilbury, 53 Wash. 446, 102 P. 403 As to the first issue, we hold that a wristwatch valued at $3,685 is 'val......