Q: We operate a small vacation hotel in a popular Florida resort area. Our best business for rooms, food and drink occurs during holiday time. That is also when we have the most problems with disorderly guests. What can we do if their conduct is so bad that we want them to leave the premises?
-- ``To Boot
or Not to Boot?''
A: You are the operator of a public lodging and public food service establishment. Your legal rights and duties are therefore governed by Florida Statute 509.141, commonly known as the Innkeeper's Law. It is one of the broadest state laws in allowing proprietors to remove unruly guests.Aside from the usual grounds of failure to pay for food or lodging or failure to check out on time, the statute specifies numerous situations authorizing guest eviction, including:
• Illegal possession or dealing in controlled substances
• Being intoxicated, profane, lewd or brawling
• Indulging in language or conduct disturbing to guest peace and comfort
• Injuring the reputation, dignity or standing of the establishment
• Being a person whose continued entertainment is considered detrimental
The operator of the establishment is required to notify the guests that it will no longer entertain them, and they must immediately depart. This notice can be verbal or written. The main limitation is that guest removal can't be primarily based on race, creed, color, sex, physical disability or national origin.
If evicted guests have prepaid, they receive back the unused portion of their advance payments. If they leave personal property on the premises, the operator is required to reasonably safeguard it. This is usually accomplished by placing the items in storage for a limited time and charging the guests. Guests who refuse to leave are guilty of a second-degree criminal misdemeanor. Law enforcement officers can be called to place them under arrest for violation of the statute.
But a word of caution before you decide to boot a guest. Under certain circumstances innkeepers may have a duty to provide safe harbor, even for misbehaving guests. This almost happened in the New York case of Dagen v. Marriott International, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91512. The plaintiff prepaid $4,000 for two rooms at the Marriott Marquis for Dec. 31, 2004, and Jan. 1, 2005. He and his rowdy party were evicted shortly before New Year's Eve. Although he was clearly impaired, there were no other local rooms available, and he faced a drive of more than 150 miles to reach home. He drove into a tree and sued for $750,000 personal injuries.
The trial court initially ruled the plaintiff's complaint stated a legal cause of action: ``Defendants could reasonably foresee that some type of harm awaited Plaintiff if they expelled him from the hotel. Common sense and common courtesy hold that innkeepers are expected to shelter those who have sought their protection -- and have a duty not to inject those same people into obviously dangerous situations.''
But just last month, summary judgment was granted defendants since his own negligence in exiting the wet road at excessive speed was the proximate cause of his accident. The hotel merely ``furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident.''
WHAT HAS HAPPENED
TO AIR PASSENGERS'
BILL OF RIGHTS?
Q: I'm a frequent flier between my financial service business offices in Miami and Manhattan. I personally experienced the Jet Blue travel nightmare last year at JFK airport and was pleased that it led to passage of the New York law that protects its city's airplane customers. The next step was supposed to be a similar federal law that applied nationwide. What is its status?
-- ``Jet-Lagged Larry''
A: The severe JFK International Airport flight delays of early 2007 led to New York becoming the first state to enact a law requiring airlines to provide passengers with ''food, water, fresh air, power and working restrooms on any flight that has left the gate and been on the tarmac for more than three hours.'' It was passed in August 2007 and was commonly known as the Air Passenger Bill of Rights. Several other states that had experienced similar travel delays and cancellations were expected to follow suit.But in March, the New York Law was struck down by the 2nd Circuit Federal Appeals Court as unconstitutional (Air Transport Association of America v. Cuomo, Docket No.07-5771-CV) because it conflicted with the Federal Airline Deregulation Act's provisions ``related to a price, route or service of an air carrier.''
The airline trade group successfully argued under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause that if a federal law broadly covers a certain subject matter, the states can't legislate in that area. Otherwise, there could be a chaotic patchwork of differing state and local laws. The New York Attorney General and consumer groups suggest that the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the meantime, similar federal legislation to create a national passenger bill of rights, including the right to deplane after three hours, remains in congressional committee. Perhaps the next major airline weather delay will be sufficient impetus for its passage.
Ask Doctor Law appears every first Monday of the month in Business Monday. Send questions to askdoctorlaw@MiamiHerald.com. Martin E. Segal, a licensed attorney, lectures in business law at the University of Miami School of Business Administration. Visit him at www.dr-law.com.
Disclaimer: This column is not intended to be a solicitation of legal business or the furnishing of self-help legal advice. Laws vary from state to state. Readers are strongly urged to consult independent and qualified legal professionals before making any business decisions. The views expressed are those of the writer and not of The Miami Herald.
