Read Perrine v. Paulos, 100 Cal.App.2d 655. Answer the questions and upload answers to assignment dropbox.

1. What is the common law rule governing accommodations of guests?
2. What does the opinion say about distinguishing a "boarder" from a "guest"?

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California. PERRINEet al. v. PAULOSet al. Civ. 17627. Nov. 29, 1950. Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1950. Hearing Denied Jan. 25, 1951.

Action by Bonnie Perrine and Ruth Taylor against Fred Paulos, Selma Younis, and others, for unlawful eviction. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, LeRoy Dawson, J., entered judgment for plaintiffs and denied defendants' motion for new trial, and defendants appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Drapeau, J., held that the evidence did not establish any excuse or justification by defendants in their treatment of plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs were entitled to exemplary as well as general damages.

Judgment affirmed, and appeal from order denying motion for new trial dismissed.

West Headnotes

Complaint by hotel guests alleging that defendants were owners of hotel, that guests were tenants on a weekly basis, and that guests were unlawfully evicted from their rooms, stated a cause of action predicated on the duty of an innkeeper to his guests. In guests' action against hotel owners, evidence supported finding that hotel manager had authority to evict guests, and supported judgment against hotel owners. In guests' action against hotel owners, admission of testimony by hotel manager of her employment by one of owners was not prejudicial. In guests' action against those who allegedly owned hotel for unlawful eviction, evidence supported findings that defendants owned hotel and that plaintiffs were guests. At common law in absence of reasonable grounds, innkeepers had duty to furnish accommodations to all persons. Whether a person is a guest or a boarder at an inn is a question of fact to be determined from the evidence. An innkeeper who refuses accommodations without just cause is not only liable to person refused in damages, but is guilty of a misdemeanor, and in such cases, exemplary damages may be assessed. Where hotel owners made no showing in excuse or in justification of their treatment of guests who were locked out of their rooms, guests could recover general and exemplary damages.

DRAPEAU, Justice. Two young women were evicted by defendants from a hotel in Los Angeles. Returning from work one evening, they found padlocks on their rooms. They could not get to any of their personal belongings or clothing. They could not find other accommodations, and had to sleep in their automobiles for three nights. Then on demand of their counsel they were permitted to again occupy their rooms. The case was tried by the court, with judgment for plaintiffs for $500 each general damages; and $500 more each, exemplary damages. Defendants argue that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that plaintiffs were merely lodgers; that the proof fails to establish that the manager of the hotel had authority to evict them; that, assuming the agent was so empowered, no exemplary damages can be imposed; that, in any event, exemplary damages may not be assessed, because the defendants believed they were acting in accordance with their rights; that plaintiffs failed to minimize their damages; **42that the complaint presented but one issue, breach of duty by a landlord to a tenant, and did not plead breach of duty by an innkeeper to a guest; and that it was error for the court to permit testimony as to statements of the manager of the hotel of her employment by one of the defendants.

[1]While the complaint may not be a model of pleading, it states a cause of action predicated on the duty of an innkeeper to his guest. It alleges that defendants were owners of the hotel; that plaintiffs were tenants on a weekly basis; and that they were unlawfully evicted.

[2] [3]With reference to the question of evidence: Several witnesses testified that one of the defendants stated she owned the hotel, and that title to it was in the other defendant 'for convenience.' This testimony, together with the presence of the manager in the hotel, and the admitted fact that the manager padlocked plaintiffs' rooms, collected the rents, and took care of the place, was sufficient to support the judgment. No *657prejudice to defendants is apparent from the admission of the questioned testimony.

[4]All the rest of defendants' objections are disposed of by the record. Applying elementary rules on appeal relative to the effect and value of evidence, the evidence supports the findings of the trial court. The evidence establishes without contradiction that defendants owned the hotel and that plaintiffs were guests.

[5]At common law innkeepers were under a duty to furnish accommodations to all persons in the absence of some reasonable grounds. James v. Marinship Corp., 25 Cal.2d 721, 155 P.2d 329, 160 A.L.R. 900; 10 Am.Jur. 914. Sections 51 and 52 of the Civil Code declare the rule in this State.

[6]Whether a person is a guest or a boarder at an inn is a question of fact to be determined from the evidence. Magee v. Pacific Improvement Co., 98 Cal. 678, 33 P. 772.

[7]An innkeeper who refuses accommodations without just cause is not only liabld in damages, but is guilty of a misdemeanor. Willis v. McMahan, 89 Cal. 156, 26 P. 649;Penal Code, Section 365; and see 14 Cal.Jur., article on innkeepers.

In such cases exemplary damages may be assessed. Piluso v. Spencer, 36 Cal.App. 416, 172 P. 412; Butler v. Allen, 73 Cal.App.2d 866, 167 P.2d 488.

[8]In this case no showing whatever was made by defendants in excuse or in justification of their treatment of plaintiffs. They just locked them out. The judgment is affirmed, and the appeal from the order denying motion for a new trial is dismissed.