Benjamin v. Colonial Hotel Co.

Citations

• 268 Pa. 459
• 112 A. 54
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 717

Syllabus

<p>Innkeepers — Loss of money in hotel — Negligence—Bailment for hire — Ordinary care — Ordinary negligence — Carelessness of guest on another occasion — Evidence—Act of June 12,1918, P. L. 181.</p> <p>1. In action by guest against hotel keeper for loss of money alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, evidence that plaintiff had been careless with other money of his own on another occasion, in the same hotel, is irrelevant and should be excluded.</p> <p>2. Protecting the property of a guest is for the joint benefit of both host and guest, and stands on the basis of bailment for hire, where the bailee is required to use ordinary care and is liable for ordinary negligence.</p> <p>3. Where a hotel instáis a vault divided into boxes, each having a door with an individual lock and key, with a master key for all, and a guest places money in one of the boxes, receiving a key therefor, and the master key is retained at the office, evidence that the master key was delivered to any guest, known to the hotel clerks, who held a key to one of the boxes, is affirmative evidence of negligence on the part of the hotel, in a suit by the guest for the loss of his money.</p> <p>4. In such case, where plaintiff founds his case entirely on an allegation of negligence, the Act of June 12, 1913, P. L. 481, does not apply, as the act does not attempt to relieve an innkeeper from liability from loss, as a result of his own negligence or that of his servants. If the court treats the act as a controlling factor, it is cardinal error.</p> <p>5. A guest in availing himself of the facilities appointed by a hotel for the safe keeping of his valuables, is bound to use ordinary care, according to the circumstances.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Charge—Contradictory instructions — Appeal— Review.</p> <p>6. Whore an answer to a point, not assigned as error, is contradictory to the charge, which is assigned as error, the appellate court will consider that the jury may have been misled by the