Summary of Raider v. Dixie Inn, 1923, Court of Appeals of KY, 248 S.W. 229
Plaintiff, Appellant= Thelma Raider
Defendant, Appellee= Dixie Inn proprietors
Procedural History: P filed suit to recover damages for humiliation suffered due to conduct of D in removing her from the hotel. P amended her complaint, admitting that D had a right to remove her from the hotel, but that it had been done unlawfully. D demurred generally to her complaint. Complaint was dismissed and P appealed.
Facts: P arrived at hotel, stating her reason for travel being to receive treatments from a physician. She remained at the hotel for a period of one month, each week paying for the coming week in advance. One afternoon, D removed her belongings from her room and removed her from the hotel giving no explanation. They later admitted that they had removed her because they had discovered she was a woman of bad character. They testified that they had not known of her bad character when she arrived, that other patrons were offended by her presence and threatened to withdraw from the hotel if she remained, and that she had not been of good behavior during her stay at the hotel. Parties differ as to whether other patrons were in the lobby at the time the proprietors told her she was to leave. P claims the method of her removal was abusive, D claims it was peaceful.
Averment: A positive declaration or affirmation of fact; esp., an assertion or allegation in a pleading
Issue: Was the means used to remove P from the premises unlawful? > No.
Holding: The managers of the inn had a right to exclude her from the hotel without becoming liable and did not do so in an unlawful manner. P does not have a stated cause of action.
Reasoning: D had a right to remove her, and was justified in telling her so, even if other persons were present in the lobby. Averments of the petition are simply P’s conclusions and are not supported by the statement of facts. She was not present at the time they removed her belongings, they placed them in the lobby where they were easily accessible to her, and the court finds that they did not give her a reason for her removal and that the whole proceeding was very quietly done.
1) Did Dixie win because it showed proper grounds for her exclusion, or because it had an absolute right to exclude her?
2) Where else is the right to exclude limited, and in what contexts is it acceptable/unacceptable?