Case ID: ohio-ca_32/html/0236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dunlap, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LIABILITY OF INNKEEPER FOR LOSS OF WEARING APPAREL.
    Court of Appeals for Summit County.
    Garman-Loomis Co. v. Ryan.
    Decided, October 6, 1919.
    
      Innkeeper — Common Law Rule of Liability Still in Force in Ohio— Possession of Key by Guest Does not Relieve Innkeeper from Lieubility for Loss of Wearing Apparel.
    
    1. The common-law rule of liability upon the part of an innkeeper for the loss of ordinary wearing apparel, left by a guest in his room, still exists in Ohio, notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 5983, General Code.
    2. Where a guest is given possession of a key to his room upon the deposit by him of the value of the key, which' deposit is to be returned when he returns the key, the innkeeper tacitly consents to the guest's retention of the key when he is temporarily absent from the hotel, and the mere failure of the guest to return the key to the innkeeper during his temporary absence from the hotel during which time his room is entered and wearing apparel taken, will not relieve the inkeeper from his common-law liability, where the foregoing circumstances are shown and is admitted that another key was already in the possession of the innkeeper or his servants.
    
      Kinder & Huffman, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Burch & Adams, for defendant in error.
    Heard on error.
   Dunlap, P. J.

The supreme court of Ohio has announced, by syllabus to Palace Hotel Co. v. Medart, 87 Ohio St., 130, that the common-law rule of liability upon the part of an innkeeper for the loss of ordinary wearing apparel, left by a guest in his room, still exists in Ohio, notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 5983, G. C. This conclusion, officially announced and sanctioned by the syllabus, is fully warranted and supported by the learned and searching opinion of Mr. Justice O’Hara, which ably presents the arguments and reasoning leading thereto. Little further need be added to show that this conclusion of the Supreme Court is decisive of the case at bar.

The only distinction, ably argued and contended for here, is that it is admitted that the plaintiff, the guest, kept possession of a key to the room during the day in which the apparel was taken from the room; but this admission is coupled with the undisputed evidence that such key was safely in his possession during the whole of the day during which he was wholly absent from the hotel, and in his possession when he returned to the hotel and opened his room and discovered and reported his loss, and that he had made a deposit of the value of the key with the innkeeper which was to be returned to hfm when he returned the key.

It is not claimed that he was not a guest, and it is admitted that there was at least one other key to the room in the possession of the innkeeper or his servants.

We hold, under the authority cited, that the evidence adduced was sufficient to make a prima facie case, and having made his prima facie case its sufficiency and the sufficiency of the defense were for the determination of the jury, whose verdict must be conclusive.

We find no reversible error in the record of this ease and the judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Washburn and Vickery, JJ., concur.