Park-O-Tell Co. v. Roskamp
| Decision Date | 18 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 33715,PARK-O-TELL,33715 |
| Citation | 223 P.2d 375,203 Okla. 493 |
| Parties | CO. v. ROSKAMP. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Under 15 O.S.A. sec. 501, the innkeeper's liability is not confined to goods of any particular kind, but extends to all personal property brought by the guest to the inn, and where defendant was an innkeeper and plaintiff was a guest, leaving his automobile and its contents in said inn, and loss thereof occurred, and all the facts and circumstances, including defendant's name, point to the fact that it was an inn holding itself out to the public as providing facilities peculiar to an inn catering to transients traveling in private automobiles with baggage and other accessories of travel, with emphasis placed on the 'parking feature' of the inn, where guests were relieved of the burden of securing safe parking or storage place for their cars and contents, such car and contents, therefore, were personal property placed under the care of the defendant under the innkeepers statute.
2. The provisions of 15 O.S.A. sec. 501 that the innkeeper is liable for goods of his guests, 'placed under his care,' is declaratory of the common law, not restrictive thereof. Under such provision, it is not necessary, in order to render the innkeeper liable for their loss, that the goods be placed under his special care, or that notice be given of their arrival. It is sufficient if they are brought into the inn in the usual and ordinary way and are not retained under the exclusive control of the guest, but are under the general and implied control of the innkeeper.
3. Where the evidence clearly establishes a case for plaintiff and there is no contradictory evidence or evidence establishing a defense, a directed verdict for plaintiff is proper.
Butler and Rinehart, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Pierce, Rucker, Mock, Tabor & Duncan, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
The parties herein occupied reverse positions in the trial court, and they will hereafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.
This is an action to recover for loss of an automobile and its contents under innkeepers law.
The plaintiff alleged in his petition that he and his wife registered as guests at the defendant's hotel, known as Park-O-Tell, in Oklahoma City on October 15, 1946; that in consideration of the room rent paid, defendant furnished a garage in which to park the plaintiff's automobile; that on the afternoon of said day, after registering at the hotel, he turned the custody of his car over to an attendant of the defendant; that plaintiff saw the attendant drive his automobile into the garage and park it; that at the time he turned the car over to the attendant it contained numerous personal belongings of the plaintiff and his wife, a list of which plaintiff attached to his petition; that on October 16 he asked for his car, but defendant failed to deliver the same to plaintiff; that after making search of the garage defendant advised him that the car had been stolen; that the car was of the value of $1,700.00; that the personal property of plaintiff and wife left in the car placed in custody of defendant was of the value of $935.40; that by reason of the theft of his vehicle he expended $191.00 railroad fare to return home; and prayed judgment for $2,826.40.
Defendant answered denying generally the allegations of the plaintiff's petition, and specifically alleged that it made no charge for parking purposes for the use of said garage and that it makes none to any of its guests; that it took no possession, custody or control of the plaintiff's automobile or any of its contents; that the automobile was not placed in its care or custody; and that it takes no custody of any of the automobiles of its guests, either by servants, agents, employees or otherwise. Defendant further alleged that plaintiff left his keys in his automobile, and was thereby guilty of negligence and that his loss was due to lack of care of plaintiff; and that plaintiff assumed full responsibility of any and all losses.
Upon the issues thus joined, trial was had to a jury. The court instructed the jury that under the facts in the case the defendant was liable to plaintiff and submitted to the jury only the question of the reasonable cash value of the automobile and contents. Verdict was for the plaintiff for $2,500.00, upon which the court rendered judgment accordingly. From this judgment the defendant appeals.
Defendant presents error under two propositions: First, 'The innkeepers law does not apply to the automobile or its contents.' Second, 'The question of liability, under proper instructions, should have been submitted to the jury.'
It is asserted under proposition one that neither the law of innkeepers nor the law of bailments applies, and that the only liability, if any, rests upon the law of reasonable care and negligence.
The trial court submitted this case to the jury on the theory that it came within the innkeepers statute, 15 O.S.1941 § 501, which provides: 'An innkeeper or keeper of a boarding house is liable for all losses of, or injuries to, personal property placed by his guests or boarders under his care, unless occasioned by an irresistible superhuman cause, by a public enemy, by the negligence of the owner, or by the act of someone whom he brought into the inn or boarding house, and upon such property the innkeeper or keeper of a boarding house has a lien and a right of detention for the payment of such amount as may be due him for lodging, fare, boarding, or other necessaries by such guest or boarder; and the said lien may be enforced by a sale of the property in the manner prescribed for the sale of pledged property.'
That plaintiff was a guest of the hotel is undisputed. It is undisputed that as a guest he turned his car and its contents over to an attendant of the hotel; that this attendant told him that his car and personal property in it would be safe; that the attendant drove his cary into the hotel and parked it, leaving the keys in it, as was usually done for the guests; that the next day he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Traylor v. Hyatt Corp.
...at p. 796; Barnette v. Casey, 124 W.Va. 143, 19 S.E.2d 621; Weisman v. Holley Hotel Co., 128 W.Va. 476, 37 S.E.2d 94; Park-O-Tell Co. v. Roskamp, 203 Okl. 493, 223 P.2d 375; Palotto v. Hanna Parking Garage Co., Ohio App., 46 Abst. 18, 68 N.E.2d Judgment reversed. JORDAN, P.J., and PANNELL, ......
-
Hallman v. Federal Parking Services
...and relate to certain classes of property. These provisions are not relevant to the case under consideration. 3. Park-O-Tell Co. v. Roskamp, 203 Okl. 493, 223 P.2d 375, liability imposed by statute declaratory of the common law; Merchants Fire Assur. Corp. of New York v. Zion's Sec. Corp., ......
-
Buck v. Del City Apartments, Inc.
...varies but slightly from the common-law norm. 15 O.S.1961, Sec. 501; Abercrombie v. Edwards, 62 Okl. 54, 161 P. 1084; Park-O-Tell Co. v. Roskamp, 203 Okl. 493, 223 P.2d 375. The innkeeper's duty to protect his guest from injury due to the defective condition of the premises is, however, gov......
-
Zurich Fire Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Weil
...registered as a guest and turned his keys over to the bellboy, the car was in the custody of the Hotel. See Park-o-Tell Co. v. Roskamp, 1950, 203 Okl. 493, 223 P.2d 375; Merchants Fire Assur. Corp. of N. Y. v. Zion's Securities Corp., 1945, 109 Utah 13, 163 P.2d 319; Andrew Jackson Hotel, I......