Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
CHAPTER 9
Rights of Innkeepers
CONTENTS
A. Chapter Competencies
B. Introduction
C. Right to Exclude Nonguests
D. Refusing Lodging to a
Would-be Guest
E. Selecting Accommodations
for a Guest
F. Changing a Guest’s
Accommodations
G. Evicting a Guest
H. Refusing a Diner
I. Statutory Protection for the
Hotelkeeper
J. Answers to Case Example
Questions
K. Answers to End-of-Chapter
Questions
Chapter Summary
The law gives the innkeeper numerous rights. Among them is the exclusive right to determine what room will
be assigned to which guest, and if necessary to switch the room during the guest’s stay at the hotel.
A restaurant can refuse to serve anyone for any reason except race, color, national origin, religion, gender,
marital status, and disability. A hotel, however, must provide accommodations to all who seek them. A hotel
nonetheless can evict guests who fail to pay their bill, are unruly, ill with contagious diseases, break house rules,
or stay beyond their scheduled departure date. When evicting a guest, the hotel should attempt to avoid the use
of force. If force does become necessary, no more force should be used than is necessary to effect the eviction.
If a hotel guest fails to pay the bill, the hotel may be able to enforce an innkeeper’s lien against the guest’s
property at the inn. If a restaurant patron or hotel guest attempts to leave without paying, the business can press
criminal charges for theft of services, larceny, or fraud. If the guest pays with a stolen credit card or bad check,
the guest can be prosecuted for possession of stolen property, forgery, or issuing a bad check.
A. Chapter Competencies
After studying Chapter 9, the student should be able to
1. state the reasons why hotels and restaurants may not want to serve unruly or belligerent customers.
2. explain why the public’s presence on hotel and restaurant premises does not constitute trespass.
3. define “trespass.”
4. explain the circumstances under which a person becomes a trespasser.
5. explain the liability of hotels and restaurants for using excessive force during the eviction of a trespasser.
6. state the general rule to refuse accommodations that applies to hotels.
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_09_Ch09_p094-105.qxd 7/6/07 10:37 PM Page 94
7. identify and explain the exceptions to the general rule in refusing accommodations.
8. describe the historical background behind the reasoning of state statutes that impose fines for
refusing a room to would-be guests.
9. identify the consequences of wrongfully refusing a guest.
10. distinguish between the rights of a hotel and a restaurant in refusing a guest based on the age of
the guest.
11. explain the liability for nonpayment by minors.
12. describe the hotel’s rights in selecting accommodations for a guest.
13. discuss the circumstances and recommended procedures in changing a guest’s accommodations.
14. explain the innkeeper’s rights to enter an occupied Guest room.
15. identify and explain the grounds for evicting a guest.
16. discuss the acceptable methods of eviction under different grounds.
17. explain the liability for wrongful eviction.
18. state the proper process of eviction.
19. define “assault.”
20. define “battery.”
21. define “defamation.”
22. explain the term “libel.”
23. explain the term “slander.”
24. distinguish between the process of evicting a guest and evicting a tenant.
25. distinguish between the rights of a restaurant and a hotel to exclude people.
26. define “lien.”
27. explain the purpose of a lien.
28. distinguish between the requirements for a lien under common law and present statutes.
29. explain what property a lien applies to.
30. identify the charges to which a lien can be applied.
31. explain the process mandated by state statutes to sell any property seized pursuant to the lien.
32. list the names given to the crime of intentional nonpayment or attempted fraud.
33. identify the two elements the prosecutor must prove to establish a defendant’s guilt of a crime such
as theft of services.
34. explain as to what acts constitute the crime of issuing a bad check.
35. explain when the crime of criminal possession of stolen property is committed.
36. explain forgery.
37. define “false arrest.”
B. Introduction
❊Explain to the students that hotels and restaurants have rights, too. While patrons are the lifeblood of
hotels and restaurants, an unruly or belligerent customer can interfere with the enjoyment of other
patrons and damage the business’s reputation. Hotels and restaurants may not want to serve such
people.
❊Ask the students to give examples of the circumstances under which a hotelkeeper or restauranteur
can refuse a would-be customer accommodations or a meal or evict a guest.
C. Right to Exclude Nonguests
❊Explain that the public’s presence on hotel or restaurant premises does not constitute trespass as
there is an implied invitation or license to all, including nonguests, to enter their facility.
■This implied license for nonguests can be revoked by the innkeeper at any time.
❊State the meaning of trespass and explain when a person becomes a trespasser.
Rights of Innkeepers ■95
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_09_Ch09_p094-105.qxd 7/6/07 10:37 PM Page 95
❊Explain that the trespasser has to be asked to leave and, if he or she refuses, then and only then can
he or she be evicted.
■Emphasize that the amount of force that can be used is limited by law.
■Explain what a reasonable force is.
•The amount of force that is reasonably necessary to remove the trespasser from the premises.
•The trespasser will be able to sue the business for injuries that result.
D. Refusing Lodging to a Would-be Guest
❊Explain that, as a general rule, a hotel cannot refuse accommodations to anyone seeking them. This
is true regardless of the hour of the guest’s arrival.
■Ask the students when a hotel can legally refuse accommodations. Make a list.
■List the exceptions that allow an inn to refuse providing a room.
•Some states impose a fine by statute for refusing a room to a would-be guest.
•Explain the historical reasoning of this statute.
– Primitive means of travel, the very limited number of hotels, and thieves were prevalent
along the roads in the night. If a traveler was refused accommodations at one hotel, he or
she might not arrive at the next hotel until very late or be forced to travel throughout the
night. He or she would thus be exposed to considerable risk.
•A hotel that refuses accommodations to someone seeking a room by saying that the hotel is
full, and later the same day accepts a different guest, will have to explain its actions if chal-
lenged by the person who was turned away or by a governmental agency that enforces the civil
rights laws. Without a good explanation, the hotel may be liable for violation of its general
duty to provide accommodations or discrimination.
•Explain the reasoning behind refusing persons who are criminals, intoxicated, disorderly, un-
clean (not bathed), or suffering from a contagious disease.
– The hotelier’s duty is to protect the well-being of its guests. Would-be guests who meet the
descriptions may cause existing guests disruption, injury, or disease.
•If the would-be guest cannot show the means to pay for even one night, the innkeeper can
legally refuse to provide that person a room.
– A hotel can also refuse to accommodate guests with firearms, explosives, or pets.
– In recent years, all states have adopted statutes that forbid refusing services to a person with
a seeing-eye dog.
– The Americans with Disabilities Act likewise requires a hotel to accommodate seeing-eye
dogs and other service animals.
❊The consequences of wrongful refusal.
■The excluded guest can sue the hotel for damages, which may include the additional expenses
of staying elsewhere.
■If the refusal is based on race, color, religion, sex, or disability, most state statutes have penalty
clauses requiring the hotel to pay a fine for the wrongful exclusion in addition to any damages
suffered by the would-be guest.
■The remedy under the federal civil rights law is an injunction barring further illegal discrimination.
❊Age.
■A few jurisdictions have statutes prohibiting discrimination against young people in places of
public accommodation. An example is Washington, D.C.
■The innkeeper is in a situation different from the restaurateur. A young person is entitled to hotel
accommodations unless any previously discussed exception applies.
■State the two reasons why a hotel is not at risk of nonpayment by a minor.
•Although minors may cancel their contracts, they remain liable for the reasonable value of
necessities they receive. Food and shelter are normally considered necessities.
•Parents are liable for necessities furnished to their minor children. The hotel can pursue the
minor’s parents.
96 ■Chapter 9
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_09_Ch09_p094-105.qxd 7/6/07 10:37 PM Page 96
E. Selecting Accommodations for a Guest
❊The determination of which room will be assigned to a guest has always been the innkeeper’s
prerogative.
❊While a hotel might be well-advised to accommodate guest preferences for the purposes of
customer satisfaction, guests have no legal recourse if denied their preference.
F. Changing a Guest’s Accommodations
❊Explain that it is not good policy to change a room or move a guest’s possessions without notice
and permission. Changing rooms should be avoided unless the reasons are compelling.
❊Entering a guest’s room.
■Explain that most courts hold that when guests are assigned a room, they are to be the sole
occupants during their stay.
■Identify the circumstances under which the innkeeper retains the right of access or entry to
occupied rooms—only for reasonable purposes.
■Emergency conditions, if known to the innkeeper, impose a duty to enter a guest’s room to
eliminate the danger. Failure to do so can result in liability.
G. Evicting a Guest
❊Explain that under certain circumstances an innkeeper has the right to withdraw hotel privileges
and evict a guest, provided no more force is used than is necessary.
❊To evict means to remove someone from property.
❊List and explain the grounds for eviction.
■Failure to pay the hotel bill.
•The eviction is ordinarily carried out by asking the guest for the amount due and requesting
the guest to leave by a certain hour if the bill is not paid. If the guest fails to pay after such a
demand, the hotel may evict.
•The reason the law gives the hotel this remedy is to allow the innkeeper to rent the room to
someone else who has the ability to pay, thereby producing income for the inn.
■Overstaying.
•Occupying a room beyond the agreed time is grounds for eviction.
•The contract for a room is for a definite time. If the guest fails to depart, the contract is
breached and the guest becomes a trespasser.
•Explain the recourse for a hotel in dealing with an overstaying guest.
– The hotel can assume that a new contract exists on a day-to-day basis, obligating the guest
to pay the cost of the room.
– Alternatively, if the hotel has made other commitments for the room, it may evict the
guest.
•Print or stamp the date of departure on the registration card, and on a copy given to the guest,
with an oral reaffirmation of the departure date.
•Explain that three states, Hawaii, Louisiana, and North Carolina, as well as Puerto Rico,
have passed statutes that codify this common-law position and make a holdover guest a
trespasser.
■Persons of ill repute.
•Explain that what constitutes an objectionable character is a debatable question, and the
hotelier relying on this ground for eviction should proceed carefully.
■Intoxication and disorderly conduct.
•Explain that intoxication alone is not an adequate reason in most states for eviction. There
must be a disturbance of the peace, disorderly conduct, threat to other guests, damage to the
room, or the like.
Rights of Innkeepers ■97
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_09_Ch09_p094-105.qxd 7/6/07 10:37 PM Page 97
•In some circumstances, not only does the hotel have the right to remove a guest, but it may
violate a duty to other guests if it does not do so.
■Disorderly conduct.
•Explain that a sober person engaged in disorderly conduct can likewise be evicted.
■Contagiously ill guests.
•According to common law, hotel operators have the right to evict a guest who contracts a con-
tagious disease that is easily spread.
•When doing so, the innkeeper should use extreme care to avoid aggravating the guest’s condition.
•According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a debilitating contagious disease may
constitute a disability.
•In ADA terms, providing accommodations to a guest with a contagious disease that is easily
spread would likely fall outside the realm of a reasonable accommodation.
■Breaking house rules.
•Hotels are entitled to adopt reasonable rules to ensure order and safety on the premises and
to prevent misconduct that can offend guests or bring the hotel into disrepute. These rules
are often called house rules.
•An innkeeper can evict a guest for failing to comply with a house rule.
•Such rules should be posted in conspicuous places, including Guest rooms.
■Persons not registered.
•When a person is not, or has never been, a guest of the hotel, the innkeeper can evict that per-
son for violating house rules or even without cause.
•The rights of a guest are not assignable; that is, they cannot be transferred. Therefore, a reg-
istered guest cannot give another person the status of guest.
■Persons without baggage.
•Explain that, in times past, a hotel could refuse to provide a room to a would-be guest who
did not have any luggage. Today such a rule would likely not be sustained by a court. The
mere absence of luggage does not in itself indicate an illegal intent.
■Business competitors.
•A business competitor who comes to a hotel to solicit customers can be enjoined, meaning the
hotel can obtain a court order barring competitors from continuing such solicitations.
•Discuss the circumstances when the presence of a competitor is requested by one of the guests.
•Explain that the hotel has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the well-being of its guests.
The hotel also has a rightful interest in maintaining its reputation, which could be adversely
affected by allowing unknown or substandard food providers on the premises.
❊The process of eviction.
■Explain that evicting someone from a hotel or restaurant for cause is proper. It should be carried
out considerately; no harsh words or force should be used unless absolutely necessary. A wrong-
ful eviction can result in liability, not only for physical injuries, but also for mental and emotional
distress.
■How to evict.
■Explain that physical force and harsh words can be avoided when an eviction is made.
•The question often becomes, How much force is necessary? What is the right amount of force?
Only reasonable force may be used; that is, only the amount of force as is reasonably neces-
sary to remove the person or to counter force used by the person.
•Hotel and restaurant employees should be carefully instructed on how to evict a guest.
•An employee’s actions are attributed to the employer per the legal principle of respondeat
superior.
•In all situations, forceful eviction should be a last resort.
•Efforts to convince the person to leave peaceably should always be attempted first.
98 ■Chapter 9
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_09_Ch09_p094-105.qxd 7/6/07 10:37 PM Page 98
■Excessive force.
•Unnecessary force in the course of an eviction can lead to liability for the torts of assault or
battery.
•Explain the difference between the torts of assault or battery. Battery occurs where a hotel or
restaurant owner or employee grabs a patron and pushes him or her out of the premises with-
out good cause, resulting in injury.
■Verbal abuse.
•Evictions can be carried out verbally without the use of force, or statements by hotel employ-
ees may accompany forceful eviction. In either circumstance, untruthful comments can lead
to liability.
•Statements made about the person being evicted can lead to a lawsuit, not only for wrongful
conviction, but also for defamation or slander.
■Evicting a hotel tenant.
•Explain that, due to the relative longevity of a tenant’s occupancy of an apartment, a tenant
is considered by law to have a greater interest in the apartment than a guest has in a hotel
room. That greater interest prevents a hotel/landlord from evicting the tenant without a
court order.
•The law provides a summary proceeding (a quick legal procedure) for this purpose that en-
ables the landlord to obtain the eviction order within a few weeks, provided grounds for evic-
tion can be proven in court.
H. Refusing a Diner
❊Explain that a restaurant not associated with a hotel has more leeway than a hotel to exclude
people.
❊Explain that employment may require the use of force where it is the employee’s duty to guard the
employer’s property and to protect it from trespassers. The act of using force may be in further-
ance of the employer’s business, making him or her liable even when greater force is used than is
necessary.
I. Statutory Protection for the Hotelkeeper
❊Statutes in most states provide protection to the innkeeper and restaurateurs against patrons who
seek to avoid payment. The hotel lien gives an innkeeper the right to retain the personal property
of a nonpaying guest. Fraud statutes authorize innkeepers and restaurateurs to pursue criminal
charges against those patrons who receive services but intentionally fail to pay.
❊The innkeeper’s lien.
■The innkeeper’s lien originated in early common law when credit cards were not yet invented.
The lien’s purpose was to protect innkeepers from dishonest guests who failed to pay their bills.
■At common law, the innkeeper could sell the property without first obtaining a court order.
■
Explain that, in the age of credit cards, the lien has only limited application. If the guest later departs
without settling the bill, the hotel will simply charge the bill to the credit card; thereby, the hotel is
assured of payment. Some states, such as New York, have repealed the innkeeper’s lien.
❊Applicable property.
■To what property does the lien apply? Innkeepers’ liens have been held valid on such diverse
items as a portable piano, valuables in a safe deposit box, and cars.
■Covered property is not limited to articles necessary for travel; merchandise samples of traveling
salespeople may also be subject to the lien.
■When an innkeeper has a lien on the personal property of their guest, the innkeeper’s right to
possession is superior in the law to that of the guest. If the guest attempts to take the property,
he or she can be charged with theft.
Rights of Innkeepers ■99
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_09_Ch09_p094-105.qxd 7/6/07 10:37 PM Page 99
❊Applicable charges.
■The innkeeper cannot enforce the lien where the services were rendered by an independent con-
tractor, such as a doctor or the owner of one of the shops in the building. Nor can the inde-
pendent contractor enforce the lien; it is particular to the innkeeper.
❊Termination of the lien by payment or sale.
■When the bill is paid, the hotelkeeper must then return any property seized pursuant to the lien.
■Many states mandate the procedure to be followed when goods subject to the lien are sold.
■The objective of these statutes is to ensure, for the benefit of the guest, that the sale generates
the most money possible. The innkeeper is further required to send notice of the sale to the non-
paying guest. This allows the guest one last opportunity to pay the bill and retrieve the posses-
sions before the sale occurs.
■Following the sale, if the innkeeper cannot locate the guest, the surplus money can be paid to a
designated public official, such as the chief fiscal officer of the city in which the sale occurred.
That officer is required to hold the money until the guest retrieves it. The hotel is thus saved
from having to indefinitely keep track of the excess money.
Defrauding the Hotelkeeper or Restaurateur
❊All states and the District of Columbia have passed criminal statutes that seek to protect the
innkeeper and restaurateur from guests who attempt to defraud by leaving without paying. These
statutes criminalize nonpayment where the perpetrator sought services with the intention of avoid-
ing payment.
❊Many of the statutes provide varying penalties depending upon the amount and value of the goods
or services received by the absconder.
❊Intent to defraud.
■A person acts intentionally when his conscious objective is to engage in the illegal conduct.
■Remember that a criminal case is quite different from a civil case, as discussed. In a civil case, the
plaintiff seeks compensation. Inadvertent or unintended action by the defendant can lead to li-
ability if the plaintiff thereby suffers a loss.
■A criminal case can result in a variety of penalties, including jail time and the resulting loss of
freedom. To justify penalizing the defendant requires that he or she act with a criminal mental
state, which usually means “intentionally.”
■Proving a defendant’s intentions is often difficult.
•Once the prosecutor proves that the defendant received food or accommodations without
paying, a presumption arises that the defendant intended to avoid payment.
■The defendant is given an opportunity to present evidence to rebut the presumption. If the de-
fendant fails to do so, the evidence of nonpayment together with the presumption is sufficient
for conviction.
❊Fraudulent payment.
■Additional statutes also protect the innkeeper and restaurateur from conniving patrons.
■A bad check is a check for which the maker has insufficient funds in the bank, or a check written
on an account that has been closed. If a customer pays for dinner or a room with a bad check
and knows the check is bad (the knowledge constitutes the required criminal mental state), the
restaurant or hotel can pursue the patron on criminal charges.
■The crime of possession of stolen property is committed when a person knowingly possesses
stolen property with the intent to benefit himself or herself, or someone other than the owner.
It is the unauthorized alteration, completion, or making of a written instrument such as a credit
card receipt or a check with intent to defraud or deceive. Most states designate forgery and crim-
inal possession of stolen property as either high-level misdemeanors or felonies.
■If a guest does steal property, he or she is liable for the crime of larceny, which is either a misde-
meanor or a felony depending on the state involved and the value of the goods stolen.
100 ■Chapter 9
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_09_Ch09_p094-105.qxd 7/6/07 10:37 PM Page 100
False Arrest
❊When a hotel or restaurant believes it is the victim of crime, it should proceed cautiously. Overre-
action can result in liability to the guest. When officers arrive, the manager will explain the basis for
believing a crime has occurred. The police will then assume the investigation.
❊If, however, the suspect is likely to escape pending the arrival of police, the hotel or restaurant may
want to act on its own. Again, prudence is advised. Hotel or restaurant management should not
restrain a person unless the manager is quite sure the individual did in fact engage in criminal
activity.
J. Answers to Case Example Questions
9-7-1. What specific actions of the hotel staff likely convinced the court to rule in favor of the
hotel?
The specific action of the hotel to remove the plaintiff may have been carried out in a proper
manner. The plaintiff was not present when hotel staff took charge of the room and made her
belongings very accessible in the lobby. No harsh words or force were used.
9-8-1. The jury believed the guest’s version of the facts. Based on that version, what did the
hotel manager do wrong? How should he have handled the situation?
According to the plaintiff’s version, he was a guest of a guest, he was asked to leave for no rea-
son, and, although he complied with the order and began to leave, he was attacked by the
innkeeper, who assaulted him with an iron pipe, causing serious injuries including “injuries to
his brain.” The innkeeper should not have asked the plaintiff to leave if he was a guest of a
guest unless the plaintiff was engaging in conduct that justified an eviction, such as disorderly
behavior, a serious illness, or breaking house rules. Further, the innkeeper should not have
attacked the guest without justification. If force is necessary to effect a justified eviction, only
the least amount of force necessary should be used. Use of an iron pipe would not be justified
unless the person was resisting with significant force.
9-8-2. Why did the appellate court refuse to substitute its own opinion for that of the
jurors?
Unlike the appeal judges, the jury heard and saw the witnesses. Thus, they had much more
information available to them to decide who was telling the truth than did the appellate
judges, who knew of the testimony only from reading transcripts (typed versions of the
testimony).
9-10-1. Why is failure to pay an outstanding bill not sufficient, standing alone, to establish
fraudulent or criminal intent?
The reason, as the appellate court stated, is that, as with most crimes, intent must be proved.
Failure to pay, standing alone, does not prove intent. No evidence was presented that the de-
fendant possessed a criminal state of mind. In fact, there is evidence here that demonstrates that
the defendant did not have criminal intent—he twice paid the hotel bill in cash. This case pres-
ents a mere failure to pay a debt and the hotel is left with its civil remedy of suing for breach of
contract.
9-10-2. What additional evidence is necessary to establish a fraudulent or criminal intent?
Criminal intent could be established in a number of different ways. It could be inferred from
the defendant’s conduct, such as paying with a check when the defendant knew he did not
have sufficient funds in his account to cover the check, passing counterfeit money when the
defendant knew it was counterfeit, or paying with a stolen credit card when the defendant
knew the credit card was stolen.
The standard of proof of criminal intent may differ from state to state depending on
whether the crime is a general intent or specific intent crime.
Rights of Innkeepers ■101
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
51934_09_Ch09_p094-105.qxd 7/6/07 10:37 PM Page 101
