## Facts

- Defendants operated the Grand Union Hotel in New York City as a public inn for paying guests.
- Plaintiff checked in with her daughter and brother, gave their true names, and was assigned a room as a guest.
- About 1:00 a.m., a hotel servant, acting in the course of employment, forced entry into plaintiff’s room without consent and against her protest while she was undressed except for a nightgown.
- The servant used vile and insulting language, accused plaintiff of immorality and being disreputable, and ordered her to leave the hotel.
- The servant threatened public disclosure of plaintiff’s name in newspapers as a disreputable woman.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings at the opening of trial; no evidence was taken.

## Issues

1. Whether a hotel’s complaint sufficiently states a cause of action where a servant, acting within the scope of employment, unjustifiably forces entry into a guest’s room at night, insults the guest, and orders her to leave.
2. Whether an innkeeper’s duties to a guest include protecting privacy, dignity, and comfort (not merely physical safety or property), and permit damages for humiliation and insult.
3. Whether the innkeeper may be held vicariously liable for such misconduct by its servant committed in the course of employment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and ordered a new trial.
- On review of a pleading dismissal where no evidence was taken, the court assumed the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations.
- The allegations described an unjustified intrusion and insults by a servant acting in the course of employment, occurring while the innkeeper–guest relationship existed.
- Those allegations, if proved, would constitute a breach of the innkeeper’s duties to the guest and could support damages; the case should proceed to a jury.

## Legal Principles

- The innkeeper–guest relationship, arising from a quasi-public business and an implied contractual undertaking, includes duties to treat guests with decency and to protect their privacy, dignity, and comfort.
- An innkeeper’s right of access to guest rooms exists only at reasonable times and for proper purposes connected with operation of the inn or emergencies; unjustified late-night forcible entry falls outside that right.
- An innkeeper may be liable for nonphysical harms to a guest, including humiliation and insult, caused by wrongful treatment by the innkeeper or its employees.
- An innkeeper is vicariously liable for wrongful acts of servants committed within the scope of employment, including unjustified intrusions and insulting accusations directed at guests.

## Conclusion

The court held that a hotel may be held liable when, during the innkeeper–guest relationship, a servant acting within the scope of employment unjustifiably intrudes into a guest’s room and subjects the guest to insults and humiliation, because the innkeeper’s duties include protecting the guest’s privacy, dignity, and comfort; the complaint therefore stated a claim and could not be dismissed on the pleadings.


De Wolf v. Ford, 193 N.Y. 397, 86 N.E. 527 (N.Y. 1908)