Marie Wallinga was staying at the Commodore Hotel. She had her son take her two diamond rings to the hotel clerk for safekeeping. The rings were shown to the clerk and then placed in a “safe-deposit envelope,” which was sealed. The son received a depositor’s check stub, which had a number corresponding to the number on the envelope. He also signed his name on the safe-deposit envelope. Both the stub and his signature were necessary to get the envelope back. The envelopes were kept in a safe located in the hotel’s front office, which was four to five feet behind the reception desk. 

The safe was used to keep cash for use in the hotel as well as the valuables of guests. The safe was equipped with a combination lock but for many years it had never been locked. A clerk was always on duty at the reception desk. One morning, at 3:30 a.m., the hotel was robbed by two armed men, and Wallinga’s rings were taken. She sued the hotel for the value of the rings. The hotel claimed that the robbery relieved it of liability for them. Was the hotelkeeper liable for the theft of property left with it for safekeeping?