Also known as: innkeepers · innkeeper's
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A person who maintains a public establishment for the lodging and entertainment of travelers. The innkeeper owes guests a duty to protect them against unreasonable risk of physical harm and to provide first aid after learning of illness or injury.
Ivan Ivanov checked into a downtown hotel run by Isabelle Inman. While walking to his room late at night, Ivan was attacked in an unmonitored hallway. The hotel had no guard present because one was ill and the others were elsewhere. Isabelle's failure to maintain adequate security breached the duty an innkeeper owes guests to protect against foreseeable physical harm.
India Inoue stayed at a furnished apartment building owned by Inertia Dynamics. A loose towel bar in her bathroom gave way, causing a fall and injury. The court treated the owner as an innkeeper and imposed liability for the unsafe condition of the premises at the start of the stay.
In 1974, IRM Corporation acquired a 36-unit apartment complex that had been built in 1962 and 1963. George Becker later leased one of the apartments in the complex. On November 21, 1978, Becker slipped and fell against the frosted glass shower door in his apartment; the door was made of untempered glass, broke on impact, and severely lacerated his arm. Prior to the acquisition, two IRM officers walked through most of the apartments and observed that all shower doors were of frosted glass and appeared identical. From acquisition until the 1978 accident, IRM received no reports of accidents involving the shower doors and was not advised that any were made of untempered glass. After the accident, IRM learned that 31 of the 36 shower doors were untempered; its maintenance man replaced them and stated that the only way to differentiate the glass types was by a very small mark in the corner of each piece, which was not visible upon ordinary inspection. Becker sued IRM for personal injury, asserting causes of action for strict liability and negligence. IRM moved for summary judgment. Becker filed no opposing affidavits. The trial court granted summary judgment and denied reconsideration. While the case was pending, Becker settled with the builder and a door assembler and installer for $150,000 plus an additional $50,000 contingent on the outcome against remaining defendants.
View caseIsmael Ibrahim signed a release when checking into a resort operated by Icarus Aviation. After suffering injury from a known hazard on the property, he sued despite the waiver. The court refused to enforce the clause because an innkeeper cannot contract away the duty of care owed to guests.
Hugo Tunkl brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of two physicians in the employ of the University of California Los Angeles Medical Center. The hospital was operated and maintained by the Regents of the University of California as a nonprofit charitable institution. Mr. Tunkl died after suit was brought, and his surviving wife, as executrix, was substituted as plaintiff. The University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center admitted Tunkl as a patient on June 11, 1956. The Regents maintain the hospital for the primary purpose of aiding and developing a program of research and education in the field of medicine. Patients are selected and admitted if the study and treatment of their condition would tend to achieve these purposes. Upon his entry to the hospital, Tunkl signed a document setting forth the “Conditions of Admission.” The crucial condition number six reads as follows: “Release: The hospital is a nonprofit, charitable institution. In consideration of the hospital and allied services to be rendered and the rates charged therefor, the patient or his legal representative agrees to and hereby releases The Regents of the University of California, and the hospital from any and all liability for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees, if the hospital has used due care in selecting its employees.” Plaintiff stipulated that the hospital had selected its employees with due care. The trial court ordered that the issue of the validity of the exculpatory clause be first submitted to the jury and that, if the jury found that the provision did not bind plaintiff, a second jury try the issue of alleged malpractice. When, on the preliminary issue, the jury returned a verdict sustaining the validity of the executed release, the court entered judgment in favor of the Regents. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
View caseAn innkeeper must protect guests against unreasonable risk of physical harm and must give first aid after learning they are ill or injured. The duty lasts until the guest can be cared for by others. This special relationship creates an affirmative obligation not imposed on ordinary property owners.
Supporting sources
Yes. Courts recognize that an innkeeper must use due care to protect guests against foreseeable criminal acts by third parties. The duty is one of reasonable care under the circumstances rather than strict liability for every incident.
Supporting sources
Evidence of industry custom is admissible to show what reasonable innkeepers do but is never conclusive. A jury may still find that following a widespread but risky practice constitutes negligence if a reasonably prudent operator would have acted differently.
Supporting sources
A guest may be barred by implied assumption of risk when she fully understands a specific danger, voluntarily encounters it, and shows willingness to accept it. Warnings and visible conditions can establish the knowledge element needed for the defense.
Supporting sources
…Stowe should not be read as rejecting implied warranties by landlords generally but only the equation of such warranties to an innkeeper's warranties. : We do not determine whether strict liability would apply to a disclosed defect. (See Luque v. McLean (1972) 8 Cal.3d 136, 141-146 [104 Cal. Rptr. 443, 501 P.2d…