Thе defendants Casperson owned and operated the Commodorе Hotel in Seattle, Washington. They had the usual employees of hotels of the size of this, consisting of a day and night clerk, bell boys, switch board operator, etc. The plaintiff occupied a room in the hotel, and in her сomplaint alleges that she was a guest of the hotel, and this allegatiоn is admitted by the answer of the defendants.
On the evening of September 11, 1926, the рlaintiff returned to the hotel at about 11:30 p. m., and went to her room. Very shortly thеreafter the defendant Sullivan entered plaintiff’s room, and it at once became apparent that he was intoxicated. He refused to leave the room, when ordered to do so by the plaintiff, and she immediаtely called the clerk on the house *258 ’phone and some one оf the employees of the hotel immediately came np and the defendant Snllivan was ejected. The plaintiff again called the clerk of the hotel and requested that the defendant Sullivan be kept away from hеr room. A short time thereafter, the plaintiff unlocked her door and startеd to cross the corridor, when she was assaulted by the defendant Sullivan who struck her, knocked her down, cutting her face, and beating her until she was unconscious. The testimony is conclusive that the plaintiff did not know the defendant Sullivan аnd had never seen him before the night of the assault.
The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants Casperson as owners and proprietors оf the hotel, and against Sullivan who actually committed the assault.
The case was tried before the court without a jury, and from a judgment in favor of the рlaintiff the defendants Casperson have appealed.
No error is predicated upon the admission or rejection of testimony, nor upоn any of the findings of fact. Error seems to be predicated upon the refusal of the court to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered еvidence. A careful examination of the affidavits filed.in support of thе motion for a new trial fails to disclose that the trial court erred in denying thе motion for a new trial.
The only other question in the case concеrns the duty which a landlord of a hotel owes to his guests.
“The proprietor оf any public house of entertainment may be answerable for the acts of one of his patrons as well as of his servant. He owes a duty to thosе who come to his place to protect them from insult or other аnnoyances or dangers.” 14 R. C. L. 508. _ ;
_ “The innkeeper must protect his guests while in the inn аgainst injury at the hands of third persons, *259 whether they are guests or strangers, where it is within the power of himself or his servants so to do.” 32 C. J. 562.
Many of the cases examined seem to indicate that the duty of the landlord to protect his guests from assault is absolute, and that he owes that same high degree of care to his guest that a common carrier owes to its patrons. Others indicate the rule to be that the landlord must use ordinary care, but all cases and text writers hold that the landlord owes the guest some duty and must furnish some protection. Some of the eases examined and which discuss the question involved are:
Curran v. Olson,
While these cases are not all strictly in point, yet the reasoning contаined therein is very persuasive. Here, we have a guest in a hotel assaulted by another guest, after the landlord had been expressly warned of the possibility of this happening, and after the assaulted guest had demanded frоm the clerk of the hotel protection against the acts of the wrongdoer.
Under circumstances such as are disclosed by this record, the plaintiff is entitled to recover.
Judgment affirmed.
Tolman, Mitchell, and Parker, JJ., concur.