Pietersen

Mrs Shacklock??™s jewellery was stolen from her hotel bedroom. She had left it in a locked suitcase under her bed, but had left her room unlocked as otherwise the chambermaid would not have been able to gain access, since the hotel had no duplicate keys.
keep them safely. It signifies for, so far as that obligation is concerned, if they are stolen by
Was the hotel liable for the loss of her jewellery

Lord MacMillan:

???By common law of England, an innkeeper is responsible to his guests if any of their goods are lost or stolen while on his premises. As it was put, so long ago as 1550 in argument in RENIGER v FOGOSSA (1552) 1 Plowd. 1 @ p. g: ???… by the common custom of th realm, hosts shall be charged for the goods of their guests lost or stolen within their premises….??™

???The principle, … is common to most, if not all, systems of jurisprudence, and was first promulgated in the praetor??™s edict nautae, caupones, stabularii. It has been said historically to have arisen owing to the danger of collusion between innkeepers and thieves.??™
tremendous liability; it is a liability fixed upon the innkeeper by the fact that he has taken goods in…

Had the loss been due to Mrs Shacklock??™s own fault, ie her leaving her room unlocked It was held that she had not been at fault, since the arrangements at the hotel required her to leave her room unlocked and she had put the jewellery out of the way in a locked suitcase.

[*The liability of a baillee or pledgee of goods extends only to taking reasonable care of their safety. That of the innkeeper gives him absolute liability, unless the goods are lost through the fault of the traveller himself, or as a result of an Act of God or the action of the Queen??™s enemies, or if the circumstances indicate that the traveller had taken upon himself the safekeeping of his property to the exclusion
???The innkeeper??™s and rights of innkeepers with respect to goods brought to inns by guests are founded, not upon bailment, or pledge, or contract, but upon the custom of the realm with regard to innkeepers.

Their rights and liabilities are dependent upon that, and that alone; they do not come under any other heading of law… the innkeeper??™s liability is not that of a bailee or pledgee of goods*; he is bound to burglars, or by servants of the inn, or by another guest; he is liable for not keeping them safely unless they are lost by the fault of the traveller himself. That is a
of the innkeeper. This last liability exists quite apart from any question of negligence on his part. When the old writ charges the innkeeper ???pro defectu hujusmodi hospitatorum??™, the ???defectus??™ means merely ???a failure DE FACTO to keep safely??™ (Holmes on the Common Law, 1881, p. 201). In the words of Lord Esher MR in ROBINS & Co. v GRAY [1895] 2QB 501 @ 503-4, ???the duties, liabilities, exception is very difficult indeed to prove].

The Wagon Mound (no. 1) [1961] AC 388

D discharged oil from their ship. It was reasonably foreseeable that this would clog P??™s wharf, but not that the oil would catch fire. It did in fact catch fire on the surface of the water and P??™s wharf was burnt down.

It was held that although this damage was the direct result of D??™s negligence, D was not liable because fire damage was not a kind of damage

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *