hotel and restaurant law: an overview
During the middle ages in England, laws pertaining to inns and taverns were favored of guests. The most cited reason for such stringent laws was that innkeepers often colluded with robbers and in many instances helped to rob their guests. While today’s innkeepers are in a different league than their medieval counterparts, they were still held in low regard by both the law and the public as late as the 1800s. Even today, most of the common law regulations protecting guests are still in effect. The rationale of legislators in allowing these archaic rules to remain on the books is probably the fact that as long as innkeepers are honest, then the old laws will not affect them.
Even though many times hotels will provide dining areas for guests, rules governing restauranteurs are generally different than those governing hoteliers. A major difference is that restauranteurs have no duty to receive all persons who present themselves in presentable condition and are able to pay for services while hoteliers must provide shelter. This allows more leeway to restauranteurs who are able to set dress codes, establish house rules, and set their business hours with great freedom. It is important to note that many state laws have changed some common-law requirements and traditions.
Both restaurants and inns are subject to regulation under the police power of the state. Many states delegate the responsibility of regulating inns and restaurants to administrative bodies or agencies such as a state hotel and restaurant commission, or a state board of health. Restaurants and inns are not public utilities, and may not be subject to the regulations of a public service commission unless they are acting as agents for a public utility. The general requirement for state regulations on inns and restaurants is “reasonableness.”
Most states require restaurant and inn owners to apply for and receive a license to operate such facilities. Licensing regulations must not be arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory to be valid.
Generally speaking, there is a mutual relationship implied between patrons and owners consistiting of reciprocal obligations and duties. The owner is under a duty to furnish proper accomodations, and to exercise proper care for the safety and tranquillity of the guest, while the guest must exercise due care to refrain from any boisterous or otherwise disruptful or offensive conduct.
An inkeeper is under an additional duty to receive and entertain all persons who offer themselves as guests, unless he or she has some reasonable grounds for refusal. The extent of what an inkeeper or restaurant owner may reasonablyconsider in denying a customer access to her establishment is limited by civil rights statutes: Owners are prohibited from refusing to accomodate or entertain persons on account of their race, color, religion, or national origin.
Both hotels and restaurants are governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/overview.html) as far as the services they render. The express and implied warranties apply to both hotel rooms and food items served in restaurants. But most of the law governing hospitality stems from case law. See Commercial law for more information about Article 2 of the U.C.C.