CASE NOTES

This section does no more than state the common-law duty of an innkeeper. Waugh v. Duke Corp., 248 F. Supp. 626 (M.D.N.C. 1966).

This section does no more than state the common-law duty of an innkeeper to provide suitable lodging to guests, and carries with it no warranty of personal safety. Urbano v. Days Inn of Am., Inc., 58 N.C. App. 795, 295 S.E.2d 240 (1982).

Duty to Protect from Unreasonable Risk of Physical Harm. - The proprietor of an inn or motel, although not an insurer of the safety of his guests, even his infant guests, is under an affirmative duty to protect his guests from an unreasonable risk of physical harm. Waugh v. Duke Corp., 248 F. Supp. 626 (M.D.N.C. 1966).

The duty of an innkeeper to a guest who is an infant is a greater duty than that owing to his adult guests and he is bound to consider whether his premises, although safe enough for an adult, present any reasonably avoidable dangers to his infant guest. Waugh v. Duke Corp., 248 F. Supp. 626 (M.D.N.C. 1966).

When a child of tender years is accepted as a guest, the inexperience and the natural tendencies of such a child become a part of the situation and must be considered by the innkeeper. This does not mean that the innkeeper becomes the nurse of the child, or assumes its control when accompanied by its parents, but only that he is bound to consider whether his premises, though safe enough for an adult, present any reasonably avoidable dangers to the child guest. Waugh v. Duke Corp., 248 F. Supp. 626 (M.D.N.C. 1966).

Duty to Warn Infant Guests of Hidden Perils. - An innkeeper is required to give warning of hidden perils. His duty to give such warning is increased when infant guests are present. Waugh v. Duke Corp., 248 F. Supp. 626 (M.D.N.C. 1966).

Innkeeper Not An Insurer of Invitees. - An innkeeper or other occupier of land is not the insurer of the personal safety of business invitees. Urbano v. Days Inn of Am., Inc., 58 N.C. App. 795, 295 S.E.2d 240 (1982).

Negligence with Respect to Glass Panel. - An innkeeper, by failure to warn an infant guest of the hidden danger of a glass panel or to place thereon such markings as would indicate the presence of the glass to infant or failure to construct guards around the panels, was negligent. Waugh v. Duke Corp., 248 F. Supp. 626 (M.D.N.C. 1966).

What Constitutes Inn or Hotel. - A public inn or hotel is a public house of entertainment for all who choose to visit it, and where all transient persons who may choose to come will be received as guests, for compensation; and it does not lose its character as such by reason of its being located at a summer resort or a watering place, or by taking some as boarders by a special contract or for a definite time. Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

Sleeping Car Not An Inn. - Though a "sleeping car" is a place for the reception of travelers, it is not an "inn." Garrett v. Southern Ry., 172 N.C. 737, 90 S.E. 903 (1916).

Boardinghouse. - A boardinghouse is as well known and as distinguishable from every other house in every city, village, and the country as an inn or tavern. It is a house where the business of keeping boarders generally is carried on, and which is held out by the owner or keeper as a place where boarders are kept. State v. McRae, 170 N.C. 712, 86 S.E. 1039 (1915).

Distinction Between Inn and Boardinghouse. - It is the publicly holding a place out as one where all transient persons who may choose to come will be received as guests for compensation that is the principal distinction between a hotel and a boardinghouse. Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

What Constitutes Boardinghouse Keeper. - The keeper of a boardinghouse is one who reserves the right to select and choose his patrons and take them in only by special arrangement, and usually for a definite time. Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

Same - Not An Innkeeper. - One who entertains strangers only occasionally, although he receives compensation for it, is not an innkeeper. State v. Mathews, 19 N.C. 424 (1837).

Boarder and Guest Distinguished. - In 16 A. and E. Enc. (2d Ed.), it is said: "The essential difference between a boarder and a guest at an inn lies in the character in which the party comes - that is, whether he is a transient person or not, and, accordingly, one who stops at an inn as a transient or a guest, with all the rights, privileges, and liberties incident to that station. On the other hand, one who seeks accommodation with a view to permanency, as to make the place his home for the time being, is not a guest, but a boarder. The length of his stay, however, is not of itself ordinarily decisive, for he will continue to be a guest as long as he remains in the transitory condition of that relation." Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

When Guest Can Be Ejected. - Guests of a hotel, and travelers or other persons entering it with the bona fide intent of becoming guests, cannot be lawfully prevented from going in, or be put out, by force, after entrance, provided they are able to pay the charges and tender the money necessary for that purpose, if requested by the landlord, unless they be persons of bad or suspicious character, or of vulgar habits, or so objectionable to the patrons of the house, on account of the race to which they belong, that it would injure the business to admit them to all portions of the house, or unless they attempt to take advantage of the freedom of the hotel to injure the landlord's chances of profit derived either from his inn or any other business incidental to or connected with its management and constituting a part of the provision for the wants or pleasure of his patrons. State v. Steele, 106 N.C. 766, 11 S.E. 478 (1890).

Same - Breach of Rules. - A guest's right of occupancy of a hotel is dependent upon proper behavior and decent conduct and obedience to reasonable rules and regulations of the proprietors; for a breach of such implied conditions he may be summarily removed. Hutchins v. Town of Durham, 118 N.C. 457, 24 S.E. 723 (1896).

Remedy of Ejected Guest. - Guests at a hotel cannot maintain ejectment if evicted, but can only sue for damages if wrongfully turned out. Hutchins v. Town of Durham, 118 N.C. 457, 24 S.E. 723 (1896).

One Not a Guest Is a Licensee. - One who is in a hotel for social purposes, at the invitation of one of its guests, is a licensee, at the will of its management, and may be forbidden the premises for improper conduct. Money v. Travelers Hotel Co., 174 N.C. 508, 93 S.E. 964 (1917).

Same - Can Be Expelled. - When persons, unobjectionable on account of character or race, enter a hotel not as guests, but intent on pleasure or profit to be derived from intercourse with its inmates, they are there not of right, but under an implied license that the landlord may revoke at any time, because barring the limitation imposed by holding out inducements to the public to seek accommodation at his inn, the proprietor occupies it as his dwelling house, from which he may expel all who have not acquired rights growing out of the relation of guests, and must drive out all who, by their bad conduct, create a nuisance and prove an annoyance to his patrons. State v. Steele, 106 N.C. 766, 11 S.E. 478 (1890).

Force Allowable in Expelling Licensee. - The board rule laid down by Wharton (1 Cr. L., sec. 625), is that the proprietor of a public house has a right to request a person who visits it, not as a guest or on business with guest to depart, and if he refuse, the innkeeper has a right to lay his hands gently on him and lead him out, and if resistance be made, to employ sufficient force to put him out. For so doing, he can justify his conduct on a prosecution for assault and battery. State v. Steele, 106 N.C. 766, 11 S.E. 478 (1890).

Other Rights of Innkeeper. - An innkeeper has, unquestionably, the right to establish a newsstand or a barbershop in his hotel, and to exclude persons who come for the purpose of vending newspapers or books, or of soliciting employment as barbers, and, in order to render his business more lucrative, he may establish a laundry or a livery stable in connection with his hotel, or an innkeeper may contract with the proprietor of a livery stable in the vicinity to secure for the latter, as far as he legitimately can, the patronage of his guests in that line for a per centum of the proceeds or profits derived by such owner of vehicles and horses from dealing with the patrons of the public house. After concluding such contracts, the innkeeper may make, and, after personal notice to violators, enforce a rule excluding from his hotel the agents and representatives of other livery stables who enter to solicit the patronage of his guests. State v. Steele, 106 N.C. 766, 11 S.E. 478 (1890).

Applied in Connelly v. Family Inns of Am., Inc., 141 N.C. App. 583, 540 S.E.2d 38 (2000).

Cited in Frockt v. Goodloe, 670 F. Supp. 163 (W.D.N.C. 1987).

CASE NOTES

Boarder and Guest Distinguished. - In 16 A. and E. Enc. (2d Ed.), it is said: "The essential difference between a boarder and a guest at an inn lies in the character in which the party comes - that is, whether he is a transient person or not, and, accordingly, one who stops at an inn as a transient or a guest, with all the rights, privileges, and liberties incident to that station. On the other hand, one who seeks accommodation with a view to permanency, as to make the place his home for the time being, is not a guest, but a boarder. The length of his stay, however, is not of itself ordinarily decisive, for he will continue to be a guest as long as he remains in the transitory condition of that relation." Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

Liability Extends to Guest. - When one is received at a public inn or hotel and entertained as a guest, without any prearrangement as to terms or time, but on the implied invitation held out to the public generally, he is a transient only - a guest and not a boarder - and entitled to recover of the defendant innkeeper as such. Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

Same - Common-Law Liability. - The decisions of this State are to the effect that, in the absence of statutory regulation, the keeper of a public inn, or hotel, which is the modern and more frequently used term, is responsible to his guest for the safety of the latter's goods, chattels, and money, when placed infra hospitum and which he has with him for the purposes of his journey. The proprietor is held to be an insurer to the extent that he must make good to the guest all loss or damage arising from any cause except the act of God or the public enemy, or the fault of the guest himself or his agents or servants. Quinton v. Courtney, 2 N.C. 40 (1794); Neal v. Wilcox, 49 N.C. 146 (1856); Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

Ordinary Care Now Required. - Even at a public inn or hotel, one who holds the position of a regular boarder or lodger can only hold the proprietor to the exercise of ordinary care on the part of himself and his employees. Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

Failure to comply with G.S. 72-6 renders innkeeper liable as at common law. Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

Liability for Personal Injuries. - The innkeeper is not insurer of his guest's personal safety, but his liability does extend to injuries received by the guest from being placed in an unsafe room. This is a matter peculiarly within the innkeeper's knowledge and entirely beyond the control of the guest. In that particular he is peculiarly within the innkeeper's power and protection. Patrick v. Springs, 154 N.C. 270, 70 S.E. 395 (1911).

Same - Negligence of Guest. - The guest must use reasonable care on his part to protect himself, and if he is himself negligent and could have avoided the injury by due care, he cannot recover. Patrick v. Springs, 154 N.C. 270, 70 S.E. 395 (1911).

CASE NOTES

Cited in Frockt v. Goodloe, 670 F. Supp. 163 (W.D.N.C. 1987).

CASE NOTES

Effect of Noncompliance with Section. - Where the provision of this section is not complied with the principle of the common law obtains and the keeper is liable as at common law. Holstein v. Phillips & Sims, 146 N.C. 366, 59 S.E. 1037 (1907).

Consequences of failing to post notice as required by this section are clear: rather than benefiting from the protection afforded by the statute, the innkeeper must look to the common law to define its duties and liabilities, and the common-law rule in North Carolina is that the innkeeper is strictly liable for the loss of a guest's property, except in a few rare instances, such as where such loss is occasioned by the guest's own negligence. Frockt v. Goodloe, 670 F. Supp. 163 (W.D.N.C. 1987).

§ 72-7: Repealed by Session Laws 1991, c. 663, s. 1.