CHAPTER VIII.

BAILMENTS INVOLVING SPECIAL LIABILITY.

SECTION 21. IN GENERAL.

Persons engaged in two important occupations are subject to an especial degree of liability as bailees on account of the quasi public character of the business in which they are engaged, and also on account of the high degree of reliance which those dealing with them are, of necessity, obliged to place in them. These two occupations are those of common carriers and inn-keepers. The liability of common carriers is treated in the next subject;1 that of inn-keepers in the next section.

SECTION 22. INN-KEEPERS.

An inn-keeper is one who holds out that he will receive all travelers and sojourners who are willing to pay a price adequate to the sort of accommodation provided, and who come in a situation in which they are fit to be received.2

Keeping a house openly for the entertainment and accommodation of travelers and others, for a reward, is keeping an inn, whether licensed or not, and whether or not liquors or wines are sold there.3

The business of an inn-keeper is viewed by the law as a public employment, and accordingly one of the distinguished characteristics of that business is the obligation to receive and entertain, as guests, all

1 Volume V, Subject 12.

Am. & Eng. Ency., Volume XVI, Note 707; Thompson vs. Lacy, 3 B. & Sed., 283, 5 E. C. L., 285.

State vs. Stone, 6 Vt., 295.

• Hall vs. State, 4 Harr. (Del.), 132.

who choose to visit the house. In this lies the distinction between an inn-keeper and the keeper of a boarding house."

One of the essential characteristics of keeping an inn is that it shall be the regular business of the person so engaged and it is not sufficient that he sometimes furnished travelers with the accommodations of an inn; but it is not necessary that inn-keeping should be his exclusive occupation, nor does the fact that he is engaged in another kind of business, which he conducts in connection with his inn for the convenience or pleasure of his guests, impose on him the liabilities of an innkeeper with reference to such other business."

8

The distinction as to the nature of the occupation, between an inn-keeper and the keeper of a private boarding house or lodging house, lies in this, that the latter is at liberty to choose his guests, while an innkeeper is pledged to entertain all travelers of good conduct and means of payment, and furnish them everything which they have occasion for as such travelers on their way.

SECTION 23. WHO ARE GUESTS.

A guest is a transient persons who resorts to, and is received at an inn for the purpose of obtaining the accommodations which it purports to afford. Persons not travelers may be guests at an inn or hotel.10 The essential point as to a guest is that he is a transient whose stay is more or less temporary and uncertain.

A person may become a guest at an inn before he

• People vs. Jones, 54 Barb. (N.Y.)

311.

• Swann vs. Smith, 14 Daly (N. Y.), 114.

Kisten vs. Hildebrand, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.), 74, 48 Am. Dec., 416.

10

Com. vs. Wetherbee, 101 Mass., 214.

Minor vs. Staples, 71 Me., 316, 36 Am. Dec., 318.

Orchard vs. Bush, 22 B., 284, 67 L. J., 2 B., 650.

has actually arrived there, provided his baggage has been taken to the inn and put under the control of its proprietor. A guest generally comes without any bargain, remains without one, and may go when he pleases, paying only for the actual entertainment received." Accordingly he ceases to be a guest when he pays his bill and departs,12 in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.

SECTION 24. THE INN-KEEPER'S BAILMENT LIA

BILITY.

There is much conflict at the present time as to the exact extent of the inn-keeper's special bailment liability.

The different positions taken on this point have been summed up by a recent writer on this subject:

"It is the duty of the inn-keeper not only to receive, but to keep safely the goods of his guests as long as they are within the inn, infra hospitium. Decisions are not in harmony as to the extent of the inn-keeper's liability for losses to the goods. Three rules have been suggested:

"(1) That the inn-keeper is prima facie liable for the loss of goods in his charge, but he may excuse himself by showing that he was free from negligence.

"(2) That the inn-keeper is excused if he can show the loss was due to inevitable accident or to irresistible force.

"(3) That the inn-keeper is an insurer of the goods against all losses not due to the act of God, the public enemy, or the negligence of the guest.

"The weight of authority is probably with the last rule, but the weight of reason and the trend of

" Relation determinable at will of

guest. Shoecraft vs. Barley, 25 Iowa, 553.

Vol. V-10.

13 Glenn vs. Jackson, 93 Slo., 342.

legislation is with the second.13 In New York, after the case of Hulett vs. Swift, the rule was modified by statute so as to excuse inn-keepers from liability for loss by accidental fires."

The third rule was formerly universally recognized. This rule grew up in England during the middle ages and was the result of the opportunities and temptations offered to the inn-keepers of the period to either rob their guests themselves or to assist in the robbery. For the protection of the guest it, therefore, became necessary to place a heavier degree of responsibility on the inn-keeper. The hardship of this old rule has been constantly diminished as the necessity for it passed away.

"Both the authorities and the analogies of the law in other cases support the view that an inn-keeper may, either expressly or impliedly, contract with his guests for a limited liability in regard to the guest's effects, and, on principle, no good reason can be perceived why this should not be so. The transaction concerns the parties only; it involves simply rights of property, and the public can have no interest in requiring the responsibility of insurance to accompany the accommodation of the guests, in the face of an agreement for its relinquishment. By such an agreement the inn-keeper becomes, with reference to the particular transaction, an ordinary bailee." Notice to a guest, given by an inn-keeper, to the effect that he will be liable for the guest's effects only to a certain extent, or on certain conditions, is sufficient,15 but an inn-keeper cannot limit his liability, in the absence of statutory authority, by a general notice." 16

19 Goddard on Bailments, Sect. 181. 14 Sanders vs. Spencer, 3 Dyer, 266b.

15 Richmond vs. Smith, 8 B. & C., 9, 15 E. C. L., 144.

16 Stanton vs. Leland, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 88.