Odger's English Common Law

642 TORTS ARISING OUT OF CONTRACTS.
through, the wilful act, default or neglect of the innkeeper
or of any servant in his employ ; or (ii.) where the goods or
property shall have been deposited expressly for safe custody
with the innkeeper ; but in such a case he is entitled, if he
thinks fit, to require that the goods or property shall be
deposited in a box or other receptacle fastened and sealed by
the person depositing the same. A copy of this section must
be exhibited in a conspicuous part of the hall or entrance to
the inn. If it is not so exhibited, the innkeeper cannot claim
the limitation of his liability granted by the Act in respect
of any goods brought into the inn during the time the copy
was not so exhibited. 1 " If any innkeeper shall refuse to
receive for safe custody as before mentioned any goods or
property of his guest, or if such guest shall, through any
default of such innkeeper, be unable to deposit such goods or
property as aforesaid," the innkeeper shall not be entitled to
the benefit of the Act in respect thereof. 2
In Medawar v. Grand Hotel Go. 3 jewels belonging to the plaintiff were
stolen. It was impossible to prove whether the same were stolen when the
plaintiff's luggage was in a bedroom or in a corridor into which a servant
of the hotel removed it. If the former were the case, the plaintiff's
negligence could have been shown to have been the cause of his loss ; if
the latter, the neglect of the innkeeper would have entitled the plaintiff
to recover the value of the jewels, although it exceeded £30. As the
onus of proving negligence lies upon the party who asserts it, and as the
plaintiff could not prove negligence in the innkeeper, he recovered
only £30.
The liability of the keeper of a boarding-house is less than
that of an innkeeper ; but he is bound to take as much care
of the goods of his boarders as an ordinary prudent house-
keeper would take of his own. How far he is answerable for
the negligence of his servant is not clear. 4 A lodging-house
keeper is responsible for. the loss of his lodger's goods when
it arises from some wrongful act of his own; but beyond that
the law imposes no obligation upon him to take care of the
goods of his lodger. 5
1 lb., s. 3 ; and see Spice v. Bacon (1877), 2 Ex. D. 463.
2 lb., s. 2.
s [1891] 2 Q. B. 11.
* See Dansey v. Richardson (1864), 3 E. & B. 144.
5 Holder v. Soulby (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. 254.