Pettit v. Thomas
Citation | 148 S.W. 501,103 Ark. 593 |
Parties | PETTIT v. THOMAS |
Decision Date | 27 May 1912 |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Calvin T. Cotham, Judge affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Appellee sued appellant, the proprietor of the Waverly Hotel, at Hot Springs, for the value of her baggage, wearing apparel, money and jewelry, destroyed by fire when the hotel was burned alleging that he was an innkeeper, and that she was a guest at the time of the destruction of the property.
Appellant denied that he was an innkeeper, and that he received appellee as a guest at the inn; alleged that he was the proprietor of a family boarding house, where visitors to the city of Hot Springs for the benefit of the water were entertained, and that she was a boarder at the hotel at the time of the destruction of the building and her personal effects by fire; denied that the fire was caused by any negligence or carelessness of himself or his servants, and that appellee lost the articles alleged.
Appellee testified that she lived in Louisville, Kentucky, and went to Hot Springs, Arkansas, on the 9th day of January, 1910; that she had known appellant for a little more than a year, and had been in Hot Springs twice during the winters recently before and once ten years before. On her arrival there, she went directly to the Waverly Hotel, having previously written appellant to meet her at the train; that she stayed at the hotel until it was burned, on the 23d of January.
Appellant testified that he was proprietor of the Waverly Hotel on the 9th day of January, 1910, and conducting the place as the New Waverly Hotel, and that he advertised his business as a family hotel. That he had one or two transient guests in one year. That his rates were from $ 12.50 a week up to $ 21.00. That he did not advertise day rates. That he gave Mrs. Thomas one of the best rooms in the house. The rate in January for that room was $ 21, and he let her have it at $ 15, on the statement that she would be there quite a while. That she said she thought she would stay until April, or until she was cured, if she was benefited, if it took a year or more. The day rates for transient guests were $ 2 or $ 3 or more a day and for her room would have been $ 3 a day for a transient guest. His rates were less in the summer than in the winter and made relative to the length of time stayed. That the Waverly Hotel trade was all family trade, they were long stayers, and as a general rule nice family people, and that Mrs. Thomas was familiar with the room at the time she engaged it.
On cross examination, he stated that he had owned the Waverly Hotel for a little over a year, that is, the furniture and the lease. His principal patrons were families, and that the only reason he didn't take some more transients was because he couldn't get them. That he was ready to entertain them whenever they came, was ready to receive any one there who was a proper person, just like any other hotel or boarding house. Mrs. Thomas paid $ 17.50 for the room the winter before, and when she wrote and asked him what the rate would be he told her $ 15. He had no contract for any particular length of time, but just a verbal contract that she would be there until April. She said: "I will be here until April any way, and longer, if necessary."
The fire occurred on January 23, and destroyed the hotel and all of the plaintiff's baggage, wearing apparel, jewelry and personal effects, which, she testified, were of the value of $ 2,500, giving an itemized list thereof. There were eighty-three bedrooms in the hotel, a register was kept, day and night clerk, porter and bell boys, and Mrs. Thomas registered on her arrival and paid her bills weekly.
There was a good deal of testimony as to the origin of the fire, which probably started in the bathhouse, adjoining the hotel, which was under a separate lease to another party, although Epperson, the engineer at the heating plant, stated that he saw through the door into the basement, the fire blazing at a place about under where the dishwashers stood, and where there was no occasion for any fire to be. That there was some kindling wood, an old boiler and a few other things stored in the basement. Other witnesses testified that they saw the fire over the bathhouse and supposed it originated there. There was no night watchman employed at the hotel, but the night clerk's duties comprehended that he should go through the corridors at night and have a general supervision of the hotel, and the engineer of the heating plant was supposed to look out for fires on the outside of the hotel and guard against prowlers and tramps.
The court instructed the jury, giving over appellant's objections instructions numbered 1, 2 and 3, as follows:
The jury returned a verdict for appellee in the sum of eight hundred dollars, and from the judgment appellant brings this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Rector & Sawyer, for appellant.
1. The court did not properly instruct the jury as to what constitutes a boarder, and, if it had, the evidence does not show that appellee was a guest. Calye's Case, 1 Smith's Leading Cases, p. 195, Hare & Wallace Notes. Ad hospitandes homines per partes ubi hujusmodi hospitia existunt transeuntes, et in eisdem hospitantes. Common inns are for passengers and wayfaring men. Beale on Innkeepers and Hotels, p. 202, § 291; 3 Bush (Ky.) 681.
A person who does not hold himself out as an innkeeper does not become such because he entertains travelers occasionally. 2 Dev. & B. 425; 1 Morris, 184.
2. This court has never adopted the strict liability rule; but, if so, it is not applicable to accidental fires. Beale on Innkeepers and Hotels, pp. 126 to 136; 3 Bush (Ky.) 133.
3. The testimony of Pettit as to the amount of insurance carried and the value of furniture was incompetent and highly prejudicial.
W. H. Martin, for appellee.
1. The instructions are not set out in the abstract. 75 Ark. 347. The presumption is the jury were properly instructed. 85 Ark. 123; 90 Id. 163; 57 Id. 441.
2. Innkeepers are chargeable for the goods of their guests lost or stolen from their inns. 33 N.Y. 571; 88 Am. Dec. 405-7; Cro. Eliz. 622; 33 Cal. 557; 91 Am. Dec. 675; 1 Cal. 221; 52 Am. Dec. 303; 27 Id. 198; 35 Id. 199; 134 Pa. 263; 52 Ark. 364-6; 16 A. & E. Enc. Law (2 ed.) 535. They are liable for accidental fires. Beale on Innkeepers and Hotels, 135; 27 Am. St. 198; 88 Am. Dec. 405; 35 Am. St. 199.
3. Plaintiff was a guest. 47 Ark. 126; 16 A. & E. Enc. L. 508; 94 N.Y. 1; 46 Am. Rep. 112; 33 Cal. 557; 7 Cush. (Mass.) 417; 98 Cal. 678; 4 Jones, Law. (N. C.) 67 Am. Dec. 266; 27 Am. St. 198; 5 Sand. 247; 91 Am. Dec. 657; 59 S.E. 1037; 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 475; 7 Ga. 307.
OPINIONKIRBY, J., (after stating the facts).
It is contended by appellant that he was not an innkeeper, and that appellee was only a boarder at the hotel, and that the court erred in giving said instructions.
The common law is in force in this State, and the liability of innkeepers thereunder has not been altered or abridged by our statutes.
"An inn has been judicially defined as 'a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marden v. Radford
... ... 552, art. 23; ... Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 557; Howth v ... Franklin, 20 Tex. 798.] ... In the ... case of Pettit v. Thomas, 103 Ark. 593, 148 S.W ... 501, l. c. 504, where the issue was as to whether a person ... was a boarder or a guest in an hotel, it is ... ...
-
Marden v. Radford
... ... Woodward, 33 Cal. 557, 91 Am. Dec. 657; Howth v. Franklin, 20 Tex. 798, 73 Am. Dec. 218 ... In the case of Pettit v. Thomas, 103 Ark. 593, 148 S. W. 501, loc. cit. 504, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 122, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 726, where the issue was as to whether a person was ... ...
-
Hackney v. Southwest Hotels, Inc.
... ... Prior to Act 217 of 1913 a hotelkeeper was liable under the ... common law for losses sustained by a guest. In ... Pettit v. Thomas, 103 Ark. 593, 148 S.W ... [195 S.W.2d 57] ... 42 L. R. A., N. S., 122, Ann. Cas. 1914B 726, we said: ... "He is an [210 Ark. 237] ... ...
-
Williams v. Arlington Hotel Co.
... ... Pettit v. Thomas, 103 Ark. 593, 148 S. W. 501, held that under the common law 15 F.2d 414 (which was at that time in force in the state), a hotel or ... ...