Hotels Statler Co. v. Safier
| Decision Date | 20 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 16471 |
| Citation | 134 N.E. 460,103 Ohio St. 638 |
| Parties | Hotels Statler Co., Inc., v. Safier. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Innkeepers - Loss of goods - Stored by guest after checking out - Bailment for mutual benefit, when - Ordinary care by bailee.
Plaintiff for several consecutive weeks became a guest of a hotel. His business calling him to adjacent cities, he checked out each week with the expectation of returning at the end of the week as a guest. Each week the plaintiff returned to the hotel staying as a guest for three or four days. The hotel was provided with special storage rooms, used as a necessary incident to its business, for customers who left their baggage until their return. By arrangement with an authorized employe plaintiff left his trunk and contents for storage in such room until his weekly return, and obtained a receipt therefor. Held: The facts stated make this a bailment for mutual benefit, based upon a sufficient consideration, and the bailee was required to use ordinary care for the safekeeping of the goods.
-
The defendant in error brought an action in the municipal court of Cleveland, Ohio, asking damages in the sum of $1037 for the loss of a trunk and contents left by him with the hotel company for storage under circumstances hereinafter stated. The cause was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury. The plaintiff recovered a judgment in the trial court for the sum of $500, which judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals on error. Error is now prosecuted to this court.
As a basis for recovery Safier, an agent for the Triangle Film Company, alleged in his amended statement of claim that from April to August, 1917, he was a guest each week at the hotel of the de- fendant for a period of about four days; "that each week, when leaving the said Hotel for his business duties in other cities, the said plaintiff did call upon the officers, agents and employes of said defendant, to take the trunk and contents thereof, belonging to plaintiff, from the respective room and quarters occupied by plaintiff, to the usual, customary and designated place in said Hotel, used and designed for the keeping and storage of trunks and the contents thereof."
He then averred that each week the defendant removed the trunk from his room to its customary place of keeping and storing trunks, giving him a receipt therefor, and that each week upon his return and again registering at the hotel the defendant upon delivery of the receipt would place the trunk in the room he was to occupy. Each time upon departing he would pay his bill, and nothing was asked or paid for storage of the trunk. About August 1, 1917, having been absent for three or four days from the hotel, he again returned presented his receipt and was then informed by the defendant that the trunk and contents had been lost. He further alleged that the defendant neglected to take proper and reasonable Care for the safekeeping of said trunk and contents and that it was guilty of gross negligence in that respect.
The defense of the hotel company amounted to
a general denial. The only witnesses in the case were the plaintiff himself and the assistant manager of the hotel. The evidence was undisputed that Safier was a guest at the hotel each week from April to August and that the trunk was lost. The plaintiff testified that in April 1917, the first week that he was a guest at the hotel, he went to the assistant manager and stated to him, "I have a trunk in my room and don't know how long I will be in town; I may be here once again, and may be here an indefinite period." The plaintiff further testified: He also testified that each week, when leaving the hotel, the porter came up to his room and gave him a check for the trunk; that at the time he went away just previous to the loss of his trunk the usual procedure was followed; that upon his return, after discovery of the loss, he surrendered the check to the assistant manager; that he then asked the assistant manager what he would have to show that he gave him the trunk check and that the assistant manager answered "our head porter will give you a receipt for it;" and that the head porter, a Mr. Gibo, thereupon gave him a receipt for the check, which receipt read as follows:
The assistant manager testified that they.had two storage rooms in the hotel for the storage of property of guests. He was asked: "Now, people who bore the relation that Mr. Safier did as traveling man, whatever that relation may be, from April to August, 1917, where were their trunks put after they checked out until they re-registered, did you have some special place for them?" And he answered: "If they were put in storage - if we got a storage check for them 'they were put in either 369 or the fourteenth floor."
The undisputed testimony discloses that Safier returned to the hotel each week from April to August, registering and staying at the hotel from three to four days each week, and spending the balance of the week in adjacent cities.
Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and Mr. Ellis R. Diehim, for plaintiff in error.
It would seem from this record that the payment of the hotel bill by the plaintiff below and his engagement for the storage of his trunk were simultaneously made. There is no question that at this time the plaintiff and defendant occupied the relation of innkeeper and guest. Not only does this relation appear from the evidence, but at common law the plaintiff would be held to occupy that relation until he had had a reasonable length of time to remove his baggage from the hotel. This principle seems to be in accord with all the authorities.
"The innkeeper's liability does not, however, cease at the very instant a guest leaves an inn, but the latter has a reasonable length of time, dependent on the circumstances of the case, in which to remove his goods, during which period the extraordinary liability of the innkeeper continues." 14 Ruling Case Law, 532; 22 Cyc., 1088; Maxwell v. Gerard, 84 Hun, 537; Adams v. Clem, 41 Ga. 65, and Sasseen & Whitaker v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242.
It may be conceded that at common law the...
To continue reading
Request your trial