Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesmotioncorporationpunitive damages
plaintiffdefendant

Related Cases

Melcher v. Beeler, 48 Colo. 233, 110 P. 181, 139 Am.St.Rep. 273
View Case »
Duggin v. Adams, 234 Va. 221, 360 S.E.2d 832
View Case »
Savings Banks Retirement System v. Clarke, 258 Md. 501, 265 A.2d 921
View Case »
Emery v. Tilo Roofing Co., 89 N.H. 165, 195 A. 409
View Case »
Remy v. MacDonald, 440 Mass. 675, 801 N.E.2d 260
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wallace v. Shoreham Hotel Corp., 49 A.2d 81

Facts

Thomas D. Wallace was a patron at the cocktail lounge of the Shoreham Hotel with his wife and friends. After paying a $20 bill, he received change for only $10, and the waiter publicly accused him of trying to cheat, stating, 'We have had people try this before.' Although the hotel later admitted the mistake and provided the correct change, Wallace claimed he was humiliated and insulted by the waiter's remarks, seeking $3,000 in punitive damages. He explicitly disavowed any claim for slander, focusing instead on damages for emotional distress.

The substance of the complaint is that plaintiff, in company with his wife and four friends, was a guest at the cocktail lounge of defendant's hotel; that, in payment of the check rendered, plaintiff gave the waiter a $20 bill but received change for only $10; that the waiter insisted he had received from plaintiff a $10 bill and stated publicly for all in the lounge to hear: ‘We have had people try this before’; that in fact plaintiff had tendered a $20 bill, which fact was later admitted by representatives of the hotel and proper change given plaintiff; that the language of the waiter indicated to those present in the lounge that plaintiff was underhanded and of low character and that his demand for change was illegal and comparable to that of a cheat or other person whose reputation for honesty is open to question; that by reason thereof plaintiff was ‘insulted, humiliated and otherwise embarrassed.’

Issue

Whether a patron of a cocktail lounge has a cause of action for humiliation and embarrassment resulting from insulting words of a waiter.

The question thus presented is whether a patron of a cocktail lounge has a cause of action for humiliation and embarrassment resulting from insulting words of a waiter.

Rule

An innkeeper owes a duty to extend respectful treatment to guests, but this duty does not necessarily extend to casual patrons of a bar or restaurant, who do not establish the same relationship as registered guests.

It has been held that an innkeeper owes a duty of extending to a guest respectful and decent treatment, and that the innkeeper is liable to a guest for insulting words or conduct; and a similar duty is placed on common carriers with respect to their passengers.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, concluding that Wallace was merely a customer and not a guest in the legal sense. It noted that the waiter’s remarks, while insulting, did not rise to a level that would warrant a cause of action for emotional distress. The court emphasized the lack of established legal standards for determining when an insult constitutes a cause of action, suggesting that allowing such claims could lead to trivial disputes being litigated.

The situation, as we see it, is the same as if the plaintiff had been the customer of any restaurant or tavern where drinks are served.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of Wallace's complaint, concluding that his claim amounted to nothing more than hurt feelings, which does not constitute a cause of action.

As we read the complaint in the case before us, plaintiff's charge in substance amounts to nothing more than that his feelings were hurt by the waiter's remarks.

Who won?

Shoreham Hotel Corporation prevailed because the court found that Wallace's complaint did not state a valid cause of action for emotional distress.

The court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that a patron of a cocktail lounge does not have a cause of action for humiliation and embarrassment resulting from insulting words of a waiter.

You must be