Savoy Hotel Corp. v. Sparks
| Decision Date | 28 July 1967 |
| Citation | 57 Tenn.App. 537,421 S.W.2d 98 |
| Parties | SAVOY HOTEL CORP., a Tenn. Corporation, and Joe H. Baker and A. S. Weinbaum, Jr., Individually and partners, d/b/a Seventh Avenue Garage, Plaintiffs-in-Error, v. Marvin L. SPARKS, Defendant-in-Error. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
James L. Roberts, of Farris, Evans & Evans, Nashville, for plaintiff in error, Savoy Hotel Corp.
Elkin Garfinkle, Nashville, for plaintiff in error, Joe H. Baker and A. S. Weinbaum, Jr.
J. Brad Reed, of Bass, Berry & Sims, and John J. Hollins, Nashville, for defendant in error, Marvin L. Sparks.
This suit involves the right of a guest in a hotel to recover from such hotel and a parking garage certain damages sustained as a result of the guest's automobile and certain items of property therein being stolen from such garage, while the guest was registered at such hotel.
For convenience, we will refer to the appellee herein as 'the plaintiff;' to the Savoy Hotel Corporation as 'the hotel' and to Joe H. Baker and A. S. Weinbaum, Jr., d/b/a Seventh Avenue Garage, as 'the garage.'
Plaintiff filed a declaration containing a single count in which he alleged that on March 26, 1963, he registered as a guest at the hotel and in consideration of the room rent paid, the hotel furnished parking service for his automobile at the garage; that after registering at the hotel plaintiff turned the custody of his automobile over to the agents, servants and employees of the hotel and the garage; that his automobile contained numerous items of property; that on March 27, 1963, plaintiff went to the garage to get his automobile, at which time the servants, agents and employees of the garage and hotel failed to deliver same to him and told him that it had been stolen.
The declaration further alleges that later, the automobile was returned to plaintiff but the various items of property therein had been stolen therefrom; that the agents, servants and employees of the garage and hotel were guilty of negligence in failing to properly guard and protect plaintiff's automobile and its contents and further alleging that the garage and hotel were bailees for hire and their negligence proximately caused the loss sustained by plaintiff.
To this declaration the hotel filed a plea of not guilty and in said plea the hotel further relied upon the following defenses:
That it had not entered into any contract with plaintiff whereby it became responsible for his automobile or the contents thereof; that it provided a place for safekeeping of the property of its guests, but the plaintiff's property was not delivered to the hotel for such safekeeping, since the plaintiff chose to leave same in his automobile. The hotel further pled as a defense the fact that under the provisions of T.C.A. Section 62--704 its liability, if any, would be limited to $300.00.
The garage filed a general issue plea of not guilty and later filed an amended plea relying upon the defense that plaintiff was given by a representative of such garage a claim check which, on its face, limited its liability, of which limitation plaintiff had knowledge and was bound thereby.
There were two trials of the case before the Circuit Judge without the intervention of a jury, on the first of which trials, after hearing the proof and taking the case under advisement, the trial Court gave a judgment against the garage and hotel for $2,142.81.
Thereafter, upon motion for new trial, the Court set aside this judgment for the reason that the case had been taken under advisement and judgment entered more than sixty days after date of trial.
The cause was again tried at a later date, at which time, after hearing all of the proof, the trial Court gave a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the garage and hotel for $2,162.81.
Motions for new trial were filed by the garage and by the hotel, which motions were overruled, appeals to this Court were prayed and properly perfected and assignments of error have been filed.
Of course, only the evidence heard upon the second trial of the case is before us. All of the evidence in the case consisted of the testimony of plaintiff, himself, and certain stipulations of counsel, from which we find the uncontroverted facts of the case to be as follows:
Counsel for the parties stipulated that at the time of plaintiff's loss he was a paying guest of the hotel and occupied a room in which there was posted a notice limiting the liability of the hotel as provided by Tennessee law where a safe or other convenient place in the hotel exists for the protection of property of guests; that the hotel did maintain such a place for baggage and other property; that the Seventh Avenue Garage was a trade name for the defendants, Baker and Weinbaum, who operated a garage business in a multi-story building on Seventh Avenue North, Nashville, Tennessee; that plaintiff parked his automobile in such garage on March 26, 1963; that the automobile was not returned to him when he called for it about 11:00 o'clock A.M. on March 27, 1963, but was recovered some days later by police in North Carolina; that the personal property in the automobile had been removed by thieves and the car had been damaged to the extent of $500.00.
Plaintiff testified that he came to Nashville on business with regard to the distribution of telephone directories on March 26, 1963; that he saw a sign on the Savoy Hotel advertising free parking for guests; that he registered at the hotel and was advised there was a garage across the street with which arrangements had been made for guests to park and he drove his automobile to this garage; plaintiff further testified that when he entered the garage an attendant took charge of his automobile and he asked the attendant to lock it and give him the keys, since he had some valuable things in it, but the attendant replied that it would be necessary for the garage to keep the keys, but he would lock the automobile and leave the keys in the office; that the attendant gave him a claim check, but he did not read anything written or printed on the check until later when the automobile was reported stolen.
Plaintiff further testified that at about 11:00 o'clock the following morning, to-wit, March 27, 1963, he went to the garage for the purpose of getting his automobile and was charged thirty-five cents for overtime parking, since the free parking privilege expired at 9:00 o'clock A.M.; that the garage employees could not find his automobile and after they made a search for about forty-five minutes or an hour, he was informed that someone had broken into the garage at night and his automobile had been stolen; that the theft was reported to the Police Department and plaintiff's insurer and plaintiff gave the police a list of the items which were in the automobile, which list is made an exhibit to his testimony in this case.
Plaintiff then testified as to his opinion of the value of the items of the property in the automobile and that none of these items were recovered except some payment books which were found scattered along a highway somewhere in Alabama, which were sent back to him by the F.B.I.
Upon cross-examination, plaintiff testified that he had travelled for fifteen years and had parked his automobile frequently in parking garages.
Since his testimony on this particular aspect of the matter is most vital, we quote the pertinent portions thereof both from plaintiff's direct an cross-examinations:
'Q. What sort of check did he give you?
A. A little check with a number on the back of it or a number on the front of it, I don't know which.
Q. Did you read anything on it that it said?
A. No, not at the time, I did not.
Q. Did he call your attention to anything written on the check?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he call your attention to any signs that may have been located in the garage?
A. No, sir.' (B. of E. p. 7)
* * *
* * *
'Q. Now, you travel very extensively, do you not?
A. That is right.
Q. And have for how many years?
A. Fifteen years.
Q. And you park your car very often in the parking garages?
A. Yes.
Q. And you receive tickets from the garages?
A. That is true.
Q. And the tickets have releases on them releasing them, the parking garage, from liability, you know that, do you not?
A. I had very seldom ever read a ticket like that and I assume that is the right assumption.
Q. But you had read it?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew that was in there?
A. Yes.
Q. This is a copy of the one you received in this instance, and I will ask you to read that and see if that is not a copy of the one you received when you parked your car?
A. This, of course, I did not read when I left the car there, but it is the standard form that most garages use so far as the wording is concerned. This is the wording most garages use. I understand that.
Q. And you understood it at the time you received the ticket, didn't you?
A. No, I wouldn't say I understood it from your garage at all.
Q. You understood it from other garages?
A. That is true.
MR. GARFINKLE: I want to make this an exhibit.' (B. of E. pp. 17--18)
At this point, counsel presented and there was filed in the record a claim check bearing No. 801 and having the following language printed thereon:
'WE CLOSE AT 11:00 P.M.
Not responsible for damage by fire, storm, theft accident nor for articles left in car. Cars left after closing time at owner's risk.'
No question is made in this case about the garage being the agent for the hotel in the parking of plaintiff's automobile, but counsel for the hotel does contend that its relationship as bailee with the plaintiff as bailor terminated at 9:00 A.M. on March 27, 1963, because its guests had to pay the garage a fee for cars parked after that hour.
Plaintiff insists that his automobile and the contents thereof were not returned to him on March 27, 1963, and that only the automobile was later...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Molitor v. Molitor
-
Allen v. Hyatt Regency-Nashville Hotel
...the garage, since the customer is not shown to have read it or to have had it called to his attention. Savoy Hotel Corp. v. Sparks, 57 Tenn.App. 537, 421 S.W.2d 98 (1967). The ticket in no way identifies the vehicle, it is given solely for the purpose of measuring the length of time during ......
-
Parton v. Mark Pirtle Oldsmobile-Cadillac-Isuzu, Inc., OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC-ISUZ
...did not become a part of the contract between the parties. To support this proposition the appellee cites Savoy Hotel Corp. v. Sparks, 57 Tenn.App. 537, 421 S.W.2d 98 (1967), in which the plaintiff left his car in a hotel parking garage and was issued a claim check with the following langua......
-
Crook v. Mid-South Transfer & Storage Co., Inc.
...We conclude from the foregoing statement and from the opinion of this Court written by Judge Puryear in Savoy Hotel Corporation v. Sparks (1967) 57 Tenn.App. 537, 421 S.W.2d 98, that before the bailor's prima facie case can be overcome, the bailee must produce evidence tending to prove that......