Case ID: scl_12/html/0509-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Huger,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Newson ads. John Axon.
    An innkeeper is liable fo: all losses which might have been prevented by ordinary aire, 
      
       And, it seems, where ever it be doubtful, whether ordinary cara has been used or nf>t, the presumption i* against the bailee, if he do not rebut the presumption of a want cl ordinary care, arising from the loss of the goods bailed, lie is responsible. '
    Whei't • the horse of a guest was put into a stable but which had a bar'to one door and a loci; although tile key was delivered to the servaut off innkeeper is liáBítí'for a horse stolen oiHfcébis sts it would nave been the same, had the stai^pbeen ted. > van very open, to the other ; yet the it seemr construe
    Ordinary care, is a question for the. jury.
    1 HIS was an action brought to recover the value of a horse, stolen from the atable of the defendant, wh o v/t;a a;.. innkeeper.
    The plaintiff when travelling, stopped at the house ol i’k defendant, with three hon;--s and two servants. The horses were put into the stable, which was very open, alltniugls. these was a bar to one door, and a good lock and key t:? the other. The hostler wished, at the usual hour Of trie evening, to lock the stable door, and carry the key into iho house, but this was objected to by the sevvaulis ct the plait;tiff, who said they would sleep in the stable, ancl did not ■wish to be locked in. It did not appear, whether the door had been locked, or how the stable was entered, but the ne;r.t morning it was discovered that' one of the horses was stolen.
    A verdict was had for the plaintiff.
    A motion was now submitted for a new trial, on the ground, that an innkeeper is only responsible for ordinary neglect, and that in this case, no such neglect appeared.'
    
      
      
         By the edict of the Roman Pretor, which with some variations has been adopted in Scotland, “ the innkeeper, shipmaster, or stables Cnautae, ccmpones, stabulani,J is accountable, not only for his own faults and those of his servants, (which is an obligation implied in the very exercise ofthese employments,) but of the other guests or passengers ; and indeed in every case, unless where the goods have been lost damno fulati, or carried off by pirates or house breakers. This edict so Contrary to common rules was found necessary ad reprimendum impro» bitatem hoc genus hominum," L. 1. s. 1. 8. naut, amp.. See Erskins' Law of Scotland, B. III. T. 1. s. 511. R,,
    
   Mr. Justice Huger,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Public utility requires that innkeepers be held liable for all losses which might have been - prevented by ordinary care. Ordinary neglect is but the absence or want of ordinary care, ( Law of Bailments, 24.) Whether ordinary care was used by the innkeeper, was a question for the jury ; and unless they have found very much against the weight of evidence, their verdict is not to be disputed.

It is the doty of*nnkeepers to provide good and sufficient stable; if they do not, they are responsible for the consequences. How far the Josis in question was to be attributed to ti^Mjadnens of the stable, does not appear; but as it may RraUij,bu-te:d -to that cause: with as much propriety a?, tootherAhe defendant has no reason to complain is vJEe responsible. It was a want of ordinary 1o have ouch a stable. Whenever it be doubtful whether ordinary care has been used or not, the presumption is against the bailee. If he does not rebut the presumption of a want of ordinary care, arising from she loss of the goods bailed, he is responsible,

It has been held, that when the goods of the guest, were placed in a chamber and the key- delivered to him, that the innkeeper tras nevertheless responsible for their loss. (Moor 78, 158. Cro. Eliz. 285. Salk. 18.)

Had therefore the stable been properly constructed, and tne key delivered to the servants of the plaintiff, the defen-danl musí have been held responsible, The innkeeper is regarded, as exercising a public employment, all die dihirr which, must be rigidly enforced, to prevent the nurner-ours frauds which they might have it in their power to practice with impunity.

Evans, Solicitor, (for Ermn,) for the motion.

McCord, (for Dunkin,) contra.

The motion must therefore be discharged.

Justices Colcock, Nott, Richardson and Gantt, concurred.