INNKEEPERS, Law relating to. By the common law of England innkeepers are under certain peculiar obligations, the most important of which are the duty of supplying accommodation to such travellers as may desire it, and their responsibility for the safety of the goods belonging to persons staying in their inns. An inn is a place “instituted for passengers and wayfaring men,” and in a recent case, in which the proprietor of a restaurant was prosecuted for refusing refreshment on demand, it was held that a tavern, or shop for the retail of spirits across the counter, is not within the definition, and that a person resident in the neighbourhood of the inn is not a traveller. An innkeeper may be indicted for refusing accommodation to a traveller, who may also of course have a remedy by civil action. To render an innkeeper liable for loss of goods at common law, the following are stated by Chitty {Law of Contracts) to be necessary conditions :—(1) that the inn be a “common” inn; (2) that the guest be a traveller or passenger; (3) that the goods or chattels must be in the inn, or at all events under the protection of the innkeeper as such; (4) that there be default on the part of the innkeeper, which is, however, implied in all cases not arising from the negligence of the guest, the act of God, or of the queen’s enemies. An innkeeper receiving goods in any other capacity, e.g., as a warehouseman or generally as bailee, or allowing the guest exclusive possession of a room for special purposes, is not liable for loss. Nor is the innkeeper liable for loss of goods by the theft of the guest’s servant or companion, or by the negligence of the guest himself. A recent Act, 26 & 27 Vict. c. 4, limits the liability of the innkeeper by the following provisions :—No ...innkeeper shall be liable to make good loss or injury to goods or property (not being a horse, or other live animal, or gear appertaining thereto, or a carriage) to a greater sum than £30, except in the following cases—(1) when the loss has been caused by the default or neglect of the innkeeper or his servants, (2) when such goods have been deposited expressly for safe custody with the innkeeper, who may require them to be deposited in a safe or other receptacle and sealed by the person depositing the same. Innkeepers are not entitled to the benefit of the Act if they refuse to receive goods for safe custody, or otherwise prevent their deposit as before provided for, or if they fail to have one copy at least of the first section of the Act exhibited in a conspicuous place in the inn. The liability of innkeepers was recognized in the civil law. On the other hand, the innkeeper has a lien on the goods of his guest for the amount of his bill. It does not extend to the clothes of the guest or justify his personal detention, but it includes articles in the possession of the guest belonging to third persons, at least when they are of a kind that travellers might ordinarily be expected to have. When a professional artist living at an inn had a piano on hire, the innkeeper, who knew it did not belong to her, was held to have no lien thereon. In a recent case the lien has been held to cover a hired piano in the possession of a family staying at an inn. In some American cases it has been held that the possession of a licence does not produce, nor does the absence of a licence prevent, the liabilities of an innkeeper at common law. An inn is distinguished from a boarding-house in this, that in the latter the guest is under an express contract for a certain time at a certain rate, in the former under an implied contract from day to day. Even if a boarding-house keeper entertains guests in the capacity of an innkeeper, he is not liable as such to his boarding-house guests.
[693 words — estimated reading time: 4 minutes]
