Shamrock Hilton Hotel v. Caranas
488 S.W.2d 151 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a business takes possession of a customer's lost property, a constructive bailment for mutual benefit is created. The business, as bailee, is liable for the negligent loss of not only the property but also any contents it could have reasonably foreseen would be within the property, and the customer's initial negligence in losing the item is not a proximate cause of the loss.
Facts:
- On September 4, 1966, Mr. and Mrs. Caranas were paying guests at the Shamrock Hilton Hotel and had dinner in its restaurant.
- After their meal, the Caranases left the dining area, and Mrs. Caranas unintentionally left her purse behind.
- The purse contained approximately $5 in cash, credit cards, and ten pieces of jewelry valued at $13,062.
- A hotel bus boy found the misplaced purse.
- Following hotel policy, the bus boy delivered the purse to the restaurant cashier, Mrs. Luster.
- Sometime later, the cashier gave the purse to a man who claimed it but was not Mr. Caranas.
- The Caranases did not realize the purse was missing until the following morning, at which point they notified the hotel.
Procedural Posture:
- The Caranases (plaintiffs) sued the Shamrock Hilton Hotel (defendant) in a Texas trial court for negligent delivery of their property.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found that both the hotel and the Caranases were negligent and that both parties' negligence was a proximate cause of the loss.
- The Caranases filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto (n.o.v.), asking the trial court to disregard the jury's findings related to their own negligence as a proximate cause.
- The trial court granted the Caranases' motion and entered a judgment in their favor for $11,252.00.
- The Shamrock Hilton Hotel (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate 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:
Does a hotel that takes possession of a guest's misplaced purse become liable for valuable, undisclosed contents if it negligently delivers the purse to a third party, and is the guest's initial negligence in misplacing the purse a proximate cause of the loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Barron, Justice.
No. A hotel that negligently delivers a guest's misplaced purse to a third party is liable for its valuable contents, and the guest's initial negligence in misplacing the item is not a proximate cause of the loss. When the hotel employee found the purse and the cashier accepted it, a constructive bailment for mutual benefit was created, imposing a duty of ordinary care on the hotel. The hotel's failure to return the purse upon demand created a presumption of negligence that it failed to rebut. The hotel's liability extends to the jewelry inside the purse because it was reasonably foreseeable that a guest at a prominent hotel might carry such valuables in her purse. The court deemed this foreseeability issue found in favor of the judgment because the hotel failed to object to its omission from the jury charge. Once the hotel assumed possession and control of the purse, it alone had the duty to safeguard it. Therefore, the hotel's negligent misdelivery was a new and independent act that was the sole proximate cause of the loss, superseding Mrs. Caranas' initial negligence.
Dissenting - Sam D. Johnson
Yes. The hotel should not be liable for the undisclosed jewelry. The hotel had no actual notice of the jewelry's existence inside the purse. The dissent argues that there is no Texas authority for the proposition that a bailee is liable for property they could reasonably expect to find within a bailed item. Furthermore, even if such a rule existed, it is not reasonable to expect a purse inadvertently left in a hotel restaurant and not missed until the next day to contain jewelry valued at over $13,000.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the scope of liability for bailees in a constructive, "container" bailment. It establishes that a bailee's duty of care extends not just to the container itself but also to valuable contents whose presence is reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances, even without the bailee's actual knowledge. The decision significantly impacts premises liability by holding that once a business assumes control over a lost item, its own negligence can supersede the owner's initial contributory negligence. This strengthens the legal responsibility of businesses to exercise ordinary care when handling patrons' lost property.
