Walpert v. Bohan

• Citation: 55 S.E. 181,126 Ga. 532
• Parties: WALPERT v. BOHAN.
• Decision Date: 17 August 1906
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

55 S.E. 181

126 Ga. 532

WALPERT v. BOHAN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 17, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

If an innkeeper also conducts a bathhouse on the seashore, where the general public, as well as guests at his inn, may obtain the use of bathrooms and accessories to the bath, this is not sufficient to constitute the relation of innkeeper and guest between him and persons using such bathhouse.

The proprietor of a bathhouse, who for a consideration furnishes bathrooms, bathing suits, and other accessories of the bath to those who desire to bathe in the sea, and also receives their money, jewelry, or other valuables for safekeeping, is a depositary for hire in relation thereto, and is liable for any loss occurring from want of ordinary care on his part.

The allegations of the declaration were sufficient to withstand a general demurrer, and the sustaining of such a demurrer was error.

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; P. E. Seabrook, Judge.

Action by Mrs. A. Walpert against William M. Bohan. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Alexander & Edwards, for plaintiff in error.

O'Connor O'Byrne & Hartridge, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN J. (after stating the foregoing facts).

1. If one keeps an inn, and also, separate from the inn, keeps a bathhouse, where persons bathing in the sea change their garments and leave their clothes, he is not chargeable as an innkeeper for property stolen from the bathhouse. Minor v. Staples, 71 Me. 316, 36 Am.Rep. 318. In the opinion in this case it is said: "We are not now speaking of bathrooms attached to or kept within hotels, but of separate buildings, erected upon the seashore, and used, not as bathrooms, but as places in which those who bathe in the sea change their garments and leave their clothes and other valuables while so bathing." In Schouler's Bailments and Carriers (3d Ed.) § 280, it is said: "One who keeps a public house may, not inconsistently, carry on a restaurant, cater to a select company, serve liquors at a bar, keep a shaving saloon, or permit outside parties to get up a ball on his premises; and, as to strangers who avail themselves of such extraneous service, he is no innkeeper at all." It is true that the declaration alleges in general terms that in connection with the inn, and as a part of it and as a part of his business at that place, the defendant maintained a certain bathhouse, where he was accustomed, for rent or hire, to furnish, to such of his guests and the general public as desired to enjoy the pleasure and benefits of sea bathing, bathrooms, bathing suits, and other bathing accessories. It does not appear, however, that the bathhouse was physically connected with the inn, or was for the use of the guests as such, or that becoming a guest at the inn entitled one to use the bathhouse, or that conducting it was an actual part of innkeeping; but apparently it was a separate and distinct building on the seashore, where the general public, whether guests of the inn or not, could for hire obtain dressing rooms and other accessories of sea bathing. We do not think this was sufficient to show the relation of innkeeper and guest existed between the proprietor of...