Is an Innkeeper Liable for a Coach?
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Law Covering the Responsibility of an Innkeeper for the Safety of his Guests' Property is Explained
By a Barrister
WHAT are the rights of an operator whose
, vehicle is stolen from outside an inn or cafe? _ Several recent cases have given topical interest to this question. Most people know something of an
• innkeeper's liability at law for the safety of guests' belongings, and nearly all of us have seen the framed printed extract from the Innkeeper's Liability Act of -1863 •which is usually displayed in a prominent part of the entrance hall or lounge of an hotel and inn. Probably few of us realize the exact extent of the protection that the law gives to travellers and how it can :be applied to modern conditions.
The legal principles involved have been settled for at least 150 years, but their origin seems lost in history. At any rate, by the reign of Elizabeth I the courts held that "common inns are instituted for passengers and wayfaring men," and it came about from this that the liability of innkeepers for their guests' goods extended only to those guests who came on the premises as travellers. The word "traveller," by reason of modern decisions, however, has Come to embrace a much wider class of person than might' be supposed.
. Who is a Traveller ?
Nowadays • one -qualifies as a traveller visiting an inn even if one in fact lives within. a ' mile or two and is merely visiting it for a drink, With no thought of ." accommodation." It is in this regard also that in . recent years.a wider conception has come about of the purpose behind a visit to an inn: Formerly one could not qualify as a traveller unless, one intended to stay the night, but now a visit to the "local for a quick drink and/or a sandwich is sufficient. •
These modern variations are nothing but wider interpretations of the old law that an innkeeper is absolutely liable for loss of, or damage to,' guest's belongings while under his roof, unless the notice under the Innkeeper's Liability Act •is displayed limiting his liability to £30. I3ut—and here the,question Is of intense interest to all vehicle ownersHan innkeeper, was never allowed to limit his liability in this tashlon in respect of his guest s . horses and carriage, and in law our modern " horseless' carriages" have now succeeded to the benefit of this
ytde. -..._ _. . . .
• While' this rule 'could impose great hardship on modern hotel•iers and innkeepers, the purpose of this article is not to sympathize with , them, but to make .clear to operators and drivers who wish to leave their vehicles as someone else's responsibility; just how they may succeed or fail in so doing. . . . ._ First of all, if the .place concerned be an inn within the legal 'meaning of the word (a place which holds itself open to accommodate and refresh all and sundry who come at any time), a driver is entitled to leave his vehicle in such accommodation as the place offers— whether it is a lock-up or other .garage attached to the premises or a car park beside it—with the secure knowledge that the responsibility for its safety is not his, but the innkeeper's.
The innkeeper cannot contract out . of this responsibility by displaying notices or ""giving car park tickets with writing on lifeithlo-thiS',elitet-',11; -hovv.ever, • the; place be not an inn—and it will be a question of fact
in each case Whether it is or not, and becanse a place is a public house it does not follow that it is also an inn—the responsibility of the proprietor is only to take reasonable care of his guest's property. That is to say, he will not be liable for loss or damage in the absence of negligence on his part.
That will be the criterion to be applied if no specific arrangements be made with the guest in question, but in this case there is nothing to prevent the proprietor seeking to limit his liability by due notice to the guest. This he normally does by notices or tickets displaying such words as," all vehicles and their contents entirely at owner's risk."
Whether such notices are sufficient to relieve the proprietor of all liability will depend only on one fact— whether they were brought sufficiently to the notice of the guest at the time, so as to form a part of the contract. If it be dark and a notice be displayed but not visible when the driver parks his vehicle, such a notice cannot be sufficient.
It may now_ be of interest to examine the grounds of a recent decision where the owners of a coach claimed damages from the proprietors o of an hotel for damage to the coach arising from its theft from the hotel. The facts were that the driver, of the coach, which was empty, arrived at the hotel during the• evening and booked a room for himself. The hotel garage and car park were full with the cars of people drinking and eating at the hotel, and he parked the coach in the drive-in of a petrol station on the other side of the road, opposite the hotel. The petrol station was owned by the hotel.
Conflicting Evidence
There was a conflict of evidence as to whether the proprietor had assured the driver that it would be safe or whether he had said "it's up to you," but in any event, the court held that the petrol station was not part of the inn's premises and the protection which is afforded to travellers on the inn preniises could not be thus extended.
A word of warning to commercial-vehicle owners should be added. In this recent case the Judge expressly left open the question whether an innkeeper was bound to accommodate and become responsible for a coach in the same way as a private car. The question was not necessary for his decision, but in view -of the old cases in which it was held that an innkeeper might refuse to take in luggage of an" exceptional " character (e.g., a wild beast or a packet of dynamite) it may well be that another court might consider a commercial vehicle to be "exceptional."