Primer on hotel law: The common law – no “tin horn punks” please

LAW - Headshot - Copy_27
LAW - Headshot - Copy_27
Avatar of Linda Hohnholz
Written by Linda Hohnholz

As noted in Travel Law 4.04, modern hotels and resorts are wedded to the past in terms of the law which defines the traveler’s rights and remedies.

As noted in Travel Law 4.04, modern hotels and resorts are wedded to the past in terms of the law which defines the traveler’s rights and remedies. The origin of hotel law can be understood by accepting this simple concept: a hotel should be as safe and secure as one’s home. The only difference being that the hotel is under the control of another party [Marion v. Hyatt Corp. (1986) (“when a guest checks in, signs the hotel register, makes satisfactory credit arrangements…and receives a definitely assigned room and key, then any implied covenant pertaining to the safety of the occupied premises comes into being”)]. In this article we begin a review of basic common law principals applied to the operation and responsibilities of hotels with the caveat, of course, that each locality worldwide has adopted variations of these common law concepts to meet the needs of modern times [see e.g., Grant, Douglas & Sharpley, Hotel Law, A Concise Guide to the Law of Inns and Innkeepers, Preface (Northumbria Law Press 2007)(“In this book we have endeavored to state the law which regulates the relationship between the hotelkeeper and his guests as it is today”)].

Travel Law Update

Disruptive Airline Passengers

In what may be the severest punishment ever imposed upon a non-violent disruptive airline passenger, “A South Korean court…sentenced the eldest daughter of Korean Air Lines Co.’s chairman to one year in prison after finding her guilty of disrupting a flight…Cho Hyun-ah was found guilty of violating aviation laws by ordering a departing jet to return to the terminal in New York in December to eject the head of the cabin crew. Shortly after boarding the plane, Ms. Cho flew into a rage over the way she was served macadamia nuts and ordered the crew member off the plane…Ms. Cho was guilty of forcing the plane to change its route (and) guilty of obstructing the flight’s captain in the performance of his duties…The cabin crew chief testified in a court hearing…that Ms. Cho behaved ‘like a beast’ and treated the crew ‘like feudal slaves’” [See In-Soo Nam, Former Korean Air Executive Found Guilty Over ‘Nut Rage’ Incident, wsj.com (2/12/2015)].

Costa Concordia Captain Convicted

As noted in Piangiani, Captain of Ship That Capsized Off Italy in ‘12 Is Convicted, nytimes.com (2/11/2015) “An Italian court…convicted the captain of a cruise liner that capsized in 2012, killing 32 people, of manslaughter and sentenced him to just over 16 years in prison for his role in one of the worst maritime disasters in modern Italian history. The captain, Francesco Schettino, 54, was convicted of multiple counts of manslaughter, causing a shipwreck and abandoning the vessel, the Costa Concordia, before all of its 4,229 passengers and crew members had been evacuated. The court also barred him from commanding a ship for five years…In closing arguments that went on for days, prosecutors attacked Captain Schettino’s conduct…calling him a ‘reckless idiot’ and accusing him of making deadly mistakes and lying to passengers, maritime authorities and rescue officials…The court also ordered Captain Schettino and the company that operated the ship, Costa Cruises, to pay damages of 30,000 euros or about $34,000 in compensation to each passenger and several million euros to local and national government bodies for the environmental harm caused by the accident…The company has already paid 1 million (euros) in administrative sanctions in connection with the disaster…Under Italian law, companies can be held responsible for their employees conduct, but (curiously) the ship’s operator, Costa Cruises, was not indicted in the case. Costa Cruises is controlled by the Carnival Corporation”. For a general discussion of cruise law and the Costa Concordia disaster see Dickerson, The Cruise Passenger’s Rights And Remedies 2014, 38 Tulane Maritime Law Journal 515 (Summer 2014) available at www.nycourts.gov/courts/9jd/taxcertatd.shtml.

Taxi-Hailing Apps

As noted by Mozur, China’s Taxi-Hailing Apps Say They Will Merge, nytimes.com (2/14/2015) “If you can’t beat them, join them. That seems to be the thinking behind (an) announcement that China’s two largest taxi-hailing applications, Didi Dache and Kuaidi Dache, will complete a ‘strategic merger’. The unlikely tie-up comes after a year of cash-fueled competition between the two companies. With the gaming giant Tencent backing Didi Dache and the e-commerce powerhouse Alibaba supporting Kuaidi Dache, the two start-ups spent hundreds of millions on promotions in what was widely seen as a proxy war between China’s two largest Internet companies”. And as noted in Isaac & Merced, Ride-Hailing Service Lyft Is Said to be in Talks to Raise $250 Million, http://dealbook.nytimes.com (2/12/2015) “But raising capital has been much harder this time, as Lyft battles Uber (which) has previously tried to persuade venture capitalists not to invest in Lyft. Uber’s chief executive. Travis Kalanick, has acknowledged”) and in Isaac, Sidecar, a Ride-Hailing Start-Up, Pushes Into Package Delivery, http://bit.blogs.nytimes.com (2/9/2015) “Start-ups like Uber and Lyft are making it acceptable to carpool with total strangers. In the future, you may start carpooling with their lunch. That is exactly what Sidecar, a ride-hailing start-up in competition with the likes of Uber and Lyft, aims to make happen. The company announced…it plans to use its fleet of cars to introduce a package delivery service, delivering items like food and groceries for partner companies. That service will be powered by Sidecar drivers who are also picking up and dropping off passengers, a move the company says cuts pricing and delivery times dramatically”.

Hotel Common Law Duties

As noted in Darby v. Compagnie Nationale Air France (2001), “The duties of innkeepers have developed over centuries. By Chaucer’s time English Law recognized the responsibilities of innkeepers to their customers. At common law, the innkeeper was required, among other tings, to provide food, lodging and a safe harbor for its guests…These principals were carried across the Atlantic and by and large helped shape the formulations of innkeepers’ duties”. At the common law the innkeeper was regarded as an insurer of the property and person of the traveler. To escape liability, the innkeeper had to demonstrate negligence or fraud on the part of the traveler or the intervention of a public enemy or an act of God. In sum, the innkeeper’s liability amounted to strict liability [Hulett v. Swift (1865)]. Under the common law, the innkeeper was under a duty to provide accommodations without discrimination to all those who requested them. The only excuse for not providing accommodations was that the hotel was fully occupied. The impact of these common law duties has been lessened over the years by modern statutes which permit innkeepers to limit some of their liability. Generally, today hotels are governed by the standard of reasonable care.

Duty To Accommodate

Hotels are under a common law duty to provide accommodations to travelers who request them. As long as there is a room available the innkeeper cannot discriminate between travelers but must accept those who properly apply. As a practical matter, hotels do not turn away travelers. It is hardly in the hotel’s interest to have empty rooms. On occasion, however, labor strife or anti-government protests may result in a lockout [see Gecker, Hotels in Bangkok Sending Tourists Packing, msnbc.com (7/14/2011) and Myers, Union Locks Out 150 Guests From Mexico City Radisson, Travel Weekly (3/8/2010)]. On occasion, however, there have been instances of discrimination based upon race and ethnic background. The common law prohibited discrimination of this kind [Rex v. Ivens (1835) (“The innkeeper is not to select his guests. He has no right to say to one, you shall come into my inn, and to another you shall not, as everyone coming and conducting himself in a proper manner has a right to be received; for this purpose innkeepers are a sort of public servant”)].

Modern Statutes

Today the problem of discrimination is prohibited by statute. As applied to hotels, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a codification of the common law duty to provide accommodations to all travelers without discrimination [Heart of Atlantis Motels, Inc. v. U.S. (1964)]. This principal also applies to restaurants found to be operating within interstate commerce [Lindsey v. SLT Los Angeles, LLC (2006)]. In addition, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) has been used by the government [U.S. v. Days Inn of America, Inc. (1998)] and private individuals and organizations [Access 4 All, Inc. v. Delancey Clinton Associates (2007)] to encourage hotels, resorts and casinos to make their facilities more handicapped accessible.

The Guest’s Baggage

The hotel must receive the traveler’s baggage that is needed for the traveler’s convenience or is necessary for a business purpose [Waters v. Beau Site Co. (1920). The innkeeper may not examine the contents of the traveler’s baggage although the hotel’s liability can be limited by statute for the loss of property based on the innkeeper’s lack of knowledge of the contents of the luggage [Van Wyck v. Howard (1856)]http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/9jd/taxcertatd.shtml.

No “Tin-Horn Punks” Please

The hotel may refuse to accommodate a traveler if he or she is objectionable [see Sherry, The Law of Innkeepers (1972) (“However, an innkeeper is not obliged to make his house a common receptacle for all comers, whatever may be their character or condition. He is not obligated to receive one who is not able to pay for his entertainment…An innkeeper may exclude a person widely publicized in the press as a common gambler, a ‘gangster’, a ‘mobster’, a ‘tin-horn punk’, an ex-convict, or a person who is habitually picked by the police for questioning, and whose presence in the inn would injure the good reputation of the innkeeper and his house and would tend to keep desirable clientele away from it”); See also Moonlear v. Atlas Motor Inns (1980)(restaurant patron refused seating for failure to comply with dress code); U.S. v. Rambo (1986)(under Minnesota undesirable guest law, a naked man running down halls may be ejected); Kelly v. U.S. (1975)(prostitute may be bared from hotel)], if his or her companions are objectionable or the traveler has brought with him or her an animal [Regina v. Rymer (1877)]. And the ejectment of a guest may be proper if the conduct of the guest affects the convenience or safety of other guests [Aaron v. Ward (1911)], affects the moral reputation of the hotel [Raider v. Dixie Inn (1923)] or involves drunkenness and the use of profanity [Dagen v. Marriott International, Inc. (2006)] or involves a guest’s refusal to pay for the services rendered by the hotel [Morningstar v. LaFayette Hotel Co. (1914)].

Conclusion

Next week we will continue our exploration of a hotel’s common law duties [e.g., duty to render courteous treatment, duty to provide safe accommodations, duty to protect guests from others] and modern variations on these themes.

The author, Justice Dickerson, been writing about Travel Law for 38 years including his annually-updated law books, Travel Law, Law Journal Press (2014), and Litigating International Torts in U.S. Courts, Thomson Reuters WestLaw (2014), and over 300 legal articles many of which are available at www.nycourts.gov/courts/9jd/taxcertatd.shtml .

This article may not be reproduced without the permission of Thomas A. Dickerson.

About the author

Avatar of Linda Hohnholz

Linda Hohnholz

Editor in chief for eTurboNews based in the eTN HQ.

Share to...