.
Case Name and Citation:
Paraskevaides v. Four Seasons Washington
292 F.3d 886; 352 U.S. App. D.C. 182; 2002 U.S. App.
Facts:
Paraskevaides stayed at Four Seasons Hotel in Washington. While staying there they locked up 1.2 million dollars of Jewelry in the safe that was in their room. A sign was on the safe wall stating a limited dollar/value amount allowed in the room safe, and that valuable items should be secured in the hotels safety deposit boxes. During their stay, the 1.2 million dollars worth of merchandise was stolen, and no forceable entry was evident. The Hotel Manager testified in District Court that a Master Key had been missing from the hotel key ring at the time of the burglary. The District Court found the hotel not liable because of the signs near the safe, and the fact that the hotel supplied safety deposit boxes outside the rooms for high value items. Thus they were not liable under Innkeeper Statute, D.C. Code Ann. § 30-10. per the District Court. The Paraskevaides appealed.
Procedural History:
148 F. Supp. 2d 20; 2001 U.S. Dist
292 F.3d 886; 352 U.S. App. D.C. 182; 2002 U.S. App.
Issues:
Issue 1:
Were the Paraskevaides properly advised about the limitations of the room safe?
Issue 2:
Were Paraskevaides negligent in leaving the items in the safe?
Holdings:
Issue 1:
No, the Paraskevaides were not properly warned of the limitations of their room safe.
Issue 2:
No, because the security of the room had all ready been negligent by the hotel.
Reasoning:
Issue 1:
According to Innkeeper Statute, D.C. Code Ann. § 30-101, all guests must be notified to limit liability of high value items in the provided safety deposit boxes, by placing signs in public areas of the hotel. Such as the lobby. It was irrelevant to this section of the law, to have used only signs in guests rooms next to their safes. Thus the hotel was liable.
Issue 2:
The Hotel had not notified its guests it was missing a mastar key, which then made their room not secure to outside intrusion by another person. The Paraskevaides could not know in advance the room would not be secure for their valuables for this reason.
Decision:
Judgment was reversed, and then remanded.
Comments:
Infra hospitium is the common law notion, that an Inn Keeper has an almost fidicuary responsiblity for his guests. It is still a very important ideal in hospitality law. Hotels and Motels, must follow the law precisely to ensure that they are not liable under the law. Common Sense and customer's understanding are not the driving force behind many hospittality laws today, one must look to the law and study it well, for common law provides that landlords in most cases are more culpable in these type of cases.
Sources:
352 S.C. 563; 575 S.E.2d 562; 2003 S.C. App. LEXIS 3
292 F.3d 886; 352 U.S. App. D.C. 182; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11675
D.C. Code Ann. § 30-101
Paraskevaides v. Four Seasons Washington
292 F.3d 886; 352 U.S. App. D.C. 182; 2002 U.S. App.
Facts:
Paraskevaides stayed at Four Seasons Hotel in Washington. While staying there they locked up 1.2 million dollars of Jewelry in the safe that was in their room. A sign was on the safe wall stating a limited dollar/value amount allowed in the room safe, and that valuable items should be secured in the hotels safety deposit boxes. During their stay, the 1.2 million dollars worth of merchandise was stolen, and no forceable entry was evident. The Hotel Manager testified in District Court that a Master Key had been missing from the hotel key ring at the time of the burglary. The District Court found the hotel not liable because of the signs near the safe, and the fact that the hotel supplied safety deposit boxes outside the rooms for high value items. Thus they were not liable under Innkeeper Statute, D.C. Code Ann. § 30-10. per the District Court. The Paraskevaides appealed.
Procedural History:
148 F. Supp. 2d 20; 2001 U.S. Dist
292 F.3d 886; 352 U.S. App. D.C. 182; 2002 U.S. App.
Issues:
Issue 1:
Were the Paraskevaides properly advised about the limitations of the room safe?
Issue 2:
Were Paraskevaides negligent in leaving the items in the safe?
Holdings:
Issue 1:
No, the Paraskevaides were not properly warned of the limitations of their room safe.
Issue 2:
No, because the security of the room had all ready been negligent by the hotel.
Reasoning:
Issue 1:
According to Innkeeper Statute, D.C. Code Ann. § 30-101, all guests must be notified to limit liability of high value items in the provided safety deposit boxes, by placing signs in public areas of the hotel. Such as the lobby. It was irrelevant to this section of the law, to have used only signs in guests rooms next to their safes. Thus the hotel was liable.
Issue 2:
The Hotel had not notified its guests it was missing a mastar key, which then made their room not secure to outside intrusion by another person. The Paraskevaides could not know in advance the room would not be secure for their valuables for this reason.
Decision:
Judgment was reversed, and then remanded.
Comments:
Infra hospitium is the common law notion, that an Inn Keeper has an almost fidicuary responsiblity for his guests. It is still a very important ideal in hospitality law. Hotels and Motels, must follow the law precisely to ensure that they are not liable under the law. Common Sense and customer's understanding are not the driving force behind many hospittality laws today, one must look to the law and study it well, for common law provides that landlords in most cases are more culpable in these type of cases.
Sources:
352 S.C. 563; 575 S.E.2d 562; 2003 S.C. App. LEXIS 3
292 F.3d 886; 352 U.S. App. D.C. 182; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11675
D.C. Code Ann. § 30-101