Walls v. Cosmopolitan Hotels, Inc.
This text of 534 P.2d 1373 (Walls v. Cosmopolitan Hotels, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Plaintiff, Paul Walls, instituted this action against defendant Cosmopolitan Hotels, Inc., to recover the value of a wristwatch he claimed had been stolen from his room while he was a guest in the defendant’s hotel. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, based upon the failure of Mr. Walls to deposit his watch with the hotel as required by RCW 19.48.030.1 Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
[428]*428Plaintiff was a registered guest in the defendant’s hotel. Plaintiff contends that when he left his hotel room for dinner he had locked the door and left the watch on a nightstand. However, upon his return the watch was gone. He noticed that the door was damaged, and upon closer inspection, had been severely damaged on some prior occasion. Apparently the screws holding the repaired portions to the lock were loose and one could easily obtain entry by merely pushing gently upon the door, even though it was locked.
Plaintiff contends that the maintenance of the door in this condition constituted willful and wanton misconduct [429]*429and such a disregard for the protection of plaintiff’s property that the defendant should be liable for the loss of his watch, which he values at $3,685. On the other hand, defendant contends that the failure of the plaintiff to deposit his watch pursuant to RCW 19.48.030 is dispositive of all issues, namely: (1) whether a wristwatch is an includable item, subject to the terms of RCW 19.48.030; and (2) whether the alleged willful and wanton misconduct of the defendant in allowing the disrepair of the door to exist entitles plaintiff to recover within the terms of RCW 19.48.030.
We realize that RCW 19.48.030, being in derogation of the common law, must be strictly construed. Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., 197 Wash. 173, 179, 84 P.2d 681, 119 A.L.R. 788 (1938); Featherstone v. Dessert, 173 Wash. 264, 22 P.2d 1050 (1933); Gillett v. Waldorf Hotel Co., 136 Wash. 615, 241 P. 14 (1925); Watt v. Kilbury, 53 Wash. 446, 102 P. 403 (1909).
As to the first issue, we hold that a wristwatch valued at $3,685 is “valuable property of small compass” and therefore subject to the provisions of RCW 19.48.030.
As to the second issue, we hold that when the plaintiff failed to deposit his “valuable property of small compass” with the hotel pursuant to RCW 19.48.030, the defendant was relieved of all liability regardless of the cause of the loss. The statute specifically states that
if such guests, . . . shall neglect to deliver such property to the person in charge of such . . . safe . . . the proprietor, . . . shall not be liable for any loss . . . of . . . such property, . . . sustained by such guests, ... by negligence of such proprietor, ... or by fire, theft, burglary, or any other cause whatsoever; . . .
(Italics ours.) Therefore, plaintiff’s contention that the cause of his loss was the willful and wanton misconduct of the defendant is not well taken in that the claimed cause of plaintiff’s loss is contained within the terms “any other causé whatsoever.”
[430]*430Plaintiff contends that Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., supra, is supportive of his theory of recovery based upon willful and wanton misconduct. We disagree. In Goodwin the court held that once the guest had proven the deposit of his property with the innkeeper, the burden shifted to the innkeeper to show that the loss was not the result of theft or gross negligence on the part of the innkeeper or his employees. There being no deposit in this case, Goodwin is not applicable.
Judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
534 P.2d 1373, 13 Wash. App. 427, 1975 Wash. App. LEXIS 1362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walls-v-cosmopolitan-hotels-inc-washctapp-1975.