Sherwood v. Elgart
| Decision Date | 27 June 1955 |
| Citation | 383 Pa. 110,117 A.2d 899 |
| Parties | Florence SHERWOOD, Antoinette Rosenberger, George Landis, Wuanita Smith and Alberta Porter, v. Samuel ELGART, Clinton Management, Inc., Samuel Elgart, Trustee, Samuel Elgart, Agent, Samuel Eigart, Inc. Appeal of Samuel ELGART. Appeal of CLINTON MANAGEMENT, Inc. Samuel Elgart, Appellant in Appeals Nos. 222, 224, 226, 228 and 272, Clinton Management, Inc., Appellant in Appeals Nos. 223, 225, 227, 229 and 273. 222, 272, 273, 224, 225, 229, 226, 228. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Petition for Modification and Reargument Dismissed Nov. 28, 1955.
Actions by guests of hotel against hotel owners for value of personal property which was destroyed by fire while located in their rooms. The Common Pleas Court, Nos. 3, 4, and 7 tried in Common Pleas No. 6, Philadelphia County, Curtis Bok P. J., and Gerald Flood, J., at Nos. 2821, 3186, 3990, 5134 and 6643, June, September and December Terms 1952 and March Term, 1953, gave judgment for guests. Hotel owners appealed. The Supreme Court, at Nos. 222-229, 272, 273, January Term, 1954, Bell, J., held that statute providing that liability of keeper of any hotel for loss or injury to personal property placed by guests under his care other than that described in other sections shall be that of a depository for hire, except that in the case such loss or injury is caused by fire not intentionally produced, hotel proprietor shall not be liable, was applicable to property left by guests in their hotel rooms, and hotel owners were not liable.
Judgments reversed and entered for hotel owners.
Lynn L. Detweiler, Herbert A. Barton, Swartz, Campbell & Henry, S. C. Nissenbaum, Nissenbaum & Maurer, Earl G. Harrison, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Abram P. Piwosky, Harvey Levin, Piwosky & Levin, Richard E. McDevitt, Philadelphia, for appellees.
Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
These are appeals from final judgments entered on findings of the lower Court awarding compensatory and punitive damages to the five plaintiffs in varying amounts.
In the early morning of February 29, 1952 a fire destroyed the Clinton Hotel in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs, guests residing at the Hotel at the time of the fire, instituted these trespass actions to recover the value of personal property located in their rooms and allegedly destroyed by the fire. The complaints charged various acts of negligence. The defendants, who were sued as owners and operators of the Hotel, denied liability.
The trial Judge, sitting without a jury, found, inter alia, that two of the defendants, namely, Samuel Elgart and Clinton Management, Inc., were negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the fire; and concluded that the Act of June 12, 1913, P.L. 481, 37 P.S. § 61 et seq., did not preclude a recovery for such losses. Each defendant seeks a judgment non obstante veredicto.
The case turns on the interpretation of the Act of 1913. Under Section 1 an innkeeper who provides (specified) safe deposit facilities for the custody of money, bank notes, jewelry, articles of gold and silver manufacture, precious stones, personal ornaments, railroad mileage books or tickets, negotiable or valuable papers, and bullion, and posts copies of the section in ten conspicuous places in the hotel shall not be liable for the loss of such valuables unless the innkeeper has refused to accept them from the guests for safe deposit and to give a receipt therefor. The section also limits the innkeeper's liability for the enumerated classes of property to $300, even if he receives them for safe keeping.
Section 2 permits an innkeeper to make any special arrangements in writing with his guests covering any property received ‘ for deposit in such safe or vault’, but provides he may not relieve himself of liability for any loss of the above-enumerated articles where loss results from his own theft or negligence or that of his servants.
Section 3 imposes a duty on guests to demand a receipt upon delivering to the proprietor or his servants any baggage or other articles of property ‘ for safe-keeping (elsewhere than in the room assigned to such guest) .’ [*] It provides that the innkeeper shall not be liable for the loss f or injury to property unless actually delivered to him or his servants. It does, however, impose liability on the innkeeper for loss or injury occasioned by his negligence or that of his servants or employees. The provisions as to negligence contained in these sections are strikingly different from the provisions in Section 4.
Section 4 in pertinent part reads as follows:
‘ The liability of the keeper of any inn or hotel, whether individual, partnership, or corporation, for loss of or injury to personal property placed by his guest under his care, other than that described in the preceding sections, shall be that of a depository for hire, except that in case such loss or injury is caused by fire, not intentionally produced by the hotel proprietor or innkeeper or his servants, such hotel proprietor or innkeeper shall not be liable: * * *.’
Section 1 obviously has no application to the instant case for the reason that plaintiffs' claims do not include any of the enumerated classes of property, i. e., money, bank notes, jewelry, etc., which were delivered to the proprietor to be placed in his safe deposit box or vault. Section 2 is likewise inapplicable since there was no special arrangement in writing covering property received ‘ for deposit in such safe or vault’ . Section 3 is likewise inapplicable inasmuch as the property for which claims are now being made were admittedly located in the plaintiffs' rooms at the time of the fire, and not delivered to the proprietor ‘ for safe-keeping (elsewhere than in the room assigned to such guest).’
We therefore come to the 4th Section and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial