Jones v. Shannon

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BRANTLY, C.J.
• Citation: Jones v. Shannon, 55 Mont. 225, 175 P. 882 (Mont. 1918)
• Decision Date: 24 October 1918
• Docket Number: 3931.
• Parties: JONES v. SHANNON et ux.

175 P. 882

55 Mont. 225

JONES v. SHANNON et ux.

No. 3931.

Supreme Court of Montana

October 24, 1918

Appeal from District Court, Valley County; Frank N. Utter, Judge.

Action by Ruth Jones against W. F. Shannon and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed as to Lila Shannon, and remanded as to W. F. Shannon on condition.

Freeman & Thelen, of Great Falls, and Slattery & Kline, of Glasgow for appellants.

Norris Hurd & McKellar, of Glasgow, for respondent.

BRANTLY C.J.

The defendants, W. F. and Lila Shannon, are husband and wife. The husband owns and conducts a public inn or hotel at Glasgow in Valley county, known as the Shannon Hotel; the wife giving her assistance by acting as housekeeper and exercising a general supervision over the guests and their entertainment, her husband giving her authority to do so. On the evening of November 10, 1913, the plaintiff was a guest of the hotel, intending to spend the night there. She and her husband, Roy Jones, were assigned to a room and were occupying and using it. After narrating the foregoing facts, the complaint charges:

"IV. That said plaintiff, while so occupying the room so assigned her by the said defendants, at about the hour of 1 o'clock in the night of November 10,1913, retired, and thereafter the said defendant Lila Shannon willfully, wrongfully, forcibly, and maliciously entered the said room, so assigned as aforesaid, of this plaintiff, and then and there abused and insulted this plaintiff, applying to her vile and indecent epithets, and charged the said plaintiff with improper and disorderly conduct, and wrongfully, maliciously, and without any cause therefor required, demanded, and compelled said plaintiff to arise from the bed in said room to which she had retired, and dress, and wrongfully, forcibly, maliciously, and without any cause therefor ousted and ejected said plaintiff from said hotel."

It then alleges that by being ejected from the hotel and thus compelled to find lodging elsewhere late at night, the plaintiff suffered great inconvenience and humiliation, and great mental anguish and bodily pain, to her damage in the sum of $5,000.

The answer, by direct and argumentative denials, puts in issue every allegation of the complaint, except that the defendant W. F. Shannon was the owner and proprietor of the Shannon Hotel, and that plaintiff was a guest there at the time alleged.

The trial resulted in a verdict against the defendants jointly for $500 compensatory, and against each of them for $250 exemplary, damages, and judgment was entered accordingly. The defendants have appealed from an order denying them a new trial.

It is contended by counsel that the court erred in denying the motion for a new trial, because the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for either compensatory or exemplary damages.

When a person has been received as a guest at a public house, he is entitled to the exclusive use of the room to which he is assigned, subject to the right of the proprietor, as well as his servants and agents, to have access to it when necessary to the proper and reasonable discharge of their duties. These entries must be at such times and in such manner as are consistent with the rights of the guest. De Wolf v. Ford, 193 N.Y. 397, 86 N.E. 527, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 860, 127 Am. St. Rep. 969; Lehnen v. Hines, 88 Kan. 58, 127 P. 612, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 830; 14 R. C. L. 505. As it is the duty of the proprietor to give reasonable attention to the comfort of his guests, so it is his right as well as his duty to see that a particular guest does not so conduct himself as to be a source of annoyance and discomfort to the other guests. This implies the duty to require the guest to refrain from annoying or offensive conduct, and, if it becomes necessary to perform this duty, the proprietor may enter the room occupied by such a guest and eject him therefrom and from the house, provided, however, he uses no more force than is necessary. Lehnen v. Hines, supra; McHugh v. Schlosser, 159 Pa. 480, 28 A. 291, 23 L. R. A. 574, 39 Am. St. Rep. 699; Holden v. Carraher, 195 Mass. 392, 81 N.E. 261, 11 Ann. Cas. 724.

If, therefore, the proprietor himself, or by his servant or agent, trespasses upon the rights of the guest, by forcing an entry into his room an dejecting him therefrom and from the house without just cause, he is liable to the guest for compensatory damages. The recovery may also include exemplary damages, if the ejection is accomplished by circumstances indicating that it was prompted by malice, fraud, or a spirit of oppression. McCarthy v. Niskern, 22 Minn. 90; Malin v. McCutcheon, 33 Tex.Civ.App. 387, 76 S.W. 586; Rev. Codes, § 6047.

As to compensatory damages: At about 6 o'clock on the evening in question, plaintiff, in company with her husband and two lady friends, Mrs. Gaasch and Mrs. Hankins, reached Glasgow by train and went to the Shannon Hotel to spend the night. Plaintiff and her husband were assigned to room 22 on the third floor. The two friends were assigned to room 23, immediately adjoining room 22. Access to room 23 could be had only through room 22 by a connecting doorway; the two rooms being apparently constructed for use as a suite. After having supper, plaintiff with her two friends left their rooms, and were not in them again until about midnight, when they returned and retired to bed. The door between the rooms was then closed. Roy Jones, the husband of plaintiff, had not up to this time been to the room, and did not then accompany plaintiff, but remained about the lobby until half an hour later, when he also retired. While he was engaged in getting undressed for bed, in response to a rap on the door leading from the hall, he opened it wide enough to ascertain what was wanted. He found the defendant Lila Shannon there, who inquired, "Who's making all this noise in here?" He answered that no one was making noise that he knew of. What thereafter occurred is related in detail by this witness, the plaintiff, Mrs. Gaasch, and Mrs. Hankins. Their several statements tend to establish these facts:

That with a show of anger, accompanied by threats of violence, Mrs. Shannon forced her way, not only into room 22, but also into room 23; that she charged the occupants of both with disturbing herself and guests by loud talk and laughter, and by stamping on the floor; that this was done in a loud and boisterous manner; that when this was denied by Mr. Jones, with the request that she leave the room, she threatened to throw him out of the window; that she persisted in the charge, telling them that they must either behave or leave the house, and that finally, when Mr. Jones said to her that if they had to leave the house they would do so, she ordered them to get out and then left; that Mr. Jones then told the plaintiff, who was lying in bed, to get up and dress, and to tell Mrs. Gaasch and Mrs. Hankins, which she did; that they all dressed and proceeded down to the lobby on their way out; that Mrs. Shannon, who had preceded them to the lobby, demanded payment for their rooms for the night, besides the price of supper for the four the previous evening, and also for breakfast next morning; that Mr. Jones thereupon paid the price of the supper for the four, but declined to pay more; that she prevented them from reaching the door leading into the street, by standing in their way and threatening to knock Mr. Jones' head off, and pushing the plaintiff from the door; that she took the hand baggage of all the party and held it until the entire bill was paid, calling in a policeman to assist her in compelling payment; that upon its payment by Mr. Jones they all left the hotel, and after searching for some other hotel or lodging house where they could find lodging for the rest of the night, and not being able to find one, they went to the house of a friend, where they spent the rest of the night. The testimony of these witnesses tends to show, further, that when they finally secured lodging plaintiff had become ill from nervous shock, and continued in that condition for a week afterwards.

Before they finally left the hotel, Mr. Jones inquired for the defendant W. F. Shannon, in order to adjust the controversy with him, but was told by Mrs. Shannon that he was in bed and that she was the landlady. There is no controversy that she had general charge and supervision of the rooms and guests. Her account was in direct conflict with the foregoing in every material particular. She stated that she and her husband, who, she said, were asleep in their room immediately below rooms 22 and 23, were aroused by a noise of loud talk and laughter and stamping on the floor above; that she went up to ascertain the cause of it; that upon going into the rooms, to which she was admitted after rapping at plaintiff's door, she requested the occupants to refrain from creating further disturbance, calling their attention to the fact that there were other guests in the house who should not be disturbed. She denied that she threatened any violence to any one, either in the plaintiff's room or in the lobby. She stated, further, that both while in plaintiff's room and after the party had reached the lobby she insisted that they should continue to occupy their rooms for the rest of the night, refraining in the meantime from making noise as they had done, but that they refused to do so. She admitted that she exacted payment of the amount paid by Mr. Jones before she consented that the party might leave the hotel.

This brief synopsis of the evidence is sufficient to show that it presented a substantial conflict, the solution of which was primarily the province of the jury. As we have so often said the conclusion of the jury in such a case must be accepted as...