Cain v. George
411 F.2d 572 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas law, an innkeeper owes a guest a duty of ordinary or reasonable care to keep the premises safe, not a high degree of care.
Facts:
- George E. Debes was a guest at a motel owned and operated by the appellees.
- The motel room was equipped with a gas heater.
- Debes died from carbon monoxide poisoning while staying in the room.
- Upon arrival, the fire department discovered a chair next to the heater that had burned and was smoldering.
- Debes' parents alleged the gas heater was defective due to improper installation, improper venting, and a lack of inspection or cleaning since its installation.
- Numerous other guests had previously occupied the same room without any complaints regarding the heater or their health.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of George E. Debes filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the motel owners in U.S. District Court (a federal trial court), based on diversity of citizenship.
- At trial, the plaintiffs requested a jury instruction based on a 'high degree of care' standard, but the court overruled the request and instructed the jury on 'ordinary care.'
- The jury returned a verdict in the form of answers to special interrogatories, finding that the death was not proximately caused by the negligence of the defendants.
- The jury also found the death was due to an 'unavoidable accident.'
- Based on the jury's verdict, the District Court entered a final judgment for the defendants, dismissing the lawsuit.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Texas law, does an innkeeper owe a guest a 'high degree of care' or a duty of 'ordinary care' to ensure their safety on the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Under Texas law, an innkeeper's responsibility to his guests is limited to the exercise of ordinary or reasonable care. The trial court was correct in refusing to instruct the jury on a 'high degree of care' standard, as established by a consistent line of Texas cases. The court also held that testimony from the motel owners about the lack of prior complaints from other guests was admissible. This evidence was not hearsay because its value was derived from the in-court testimony of the owners themselves, not from out-of-court declarants. It was relevant to the issue of causation, supporting the theory that the carbon monoxide originated from the smoldering chair rather than the heater by showing the heater's history of safe operation. Finally, any error in submitting an 'unavoidable accident' interrogatory to the jury was harmless because the jury had already found the defendants were not negligent, meaning the interrogatory did not affect the ultimate outcome of the case.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the established common law standard of care for innkeepers in Texas, distinguishing it from the higher standard imposed on common carriers. The court's evidentiary ruling is also significant, clarifying that a defendant can introduce evidence of a lack of prior similar incidents to counter a plaintiff's claim of a dangerous condition. This non-hearsay evidence is relevant to show the defendant's lack of knowledge of a defect and to support alternative theories of causation. The holding on harmless error further demonstrates that appellate courts will not reverse a judgment for a trial error that did not prejudice the complaining party or affect the case's ultimate liability determination.
Unlock the full brief for Cain v. George