Kisten v. Hildebrand
| Decision Date | 03 January 1848 |
| Citation | 48 Ky. 72 |
| Parties | Kisten v. Hildebrand. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Tavern-keepers. Innkeepers. Bailments. Instructions.
ERROR TO THE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT.
Pirtle & Speed for plaintiff.
Guthrie & Wolfe for defendant.
THIS action on the case was brought to recover from Kisten, as an innkeeper, a large sum of money alleged to have been taken through the default and negligence of the defendant, his servants, & c., from the trunk of the plaintiff, in the inn of the defendant, he, the plaintiff, being then a guest therein. The form of proceeding against innkeepers in England, upon the custom of the realm, seems to have been substantially pursued. The declaration sets out as the foundation of the action, that " by the custom and law of this Commonwealth, innkeepers who keep common inns for entertaining men travelling through those parts where those inns are, and in the same abiding, their goods and chattels and money, within those inns being, are bound to keep, day and night, without diminution or loss, so that through the default of the said innkeepers or their servants, damage to such guests might not, in any manner happen," & c., & c., and alleges that through the default of the defendant and his servants, the money was taken and carried away by certain malefactors. A demurrer to to the declaration was overruled, and a trial being had on the plea of not guilty, filed with the demurrer, a verdict for $300 was found against the defendant, who prosecutes this writ of error for the reversal of the judgment rendered upon it.
Case stated and pleadings and judgment of the Circuit Court.
As the custom of the realm of England, with regard to inns and innkeepers, and the liability of the latter, was a general custom, and therefore, a part of the common law, we assume that so far as it is applicable and not inconsistent with our own local laws and usages, it is also a part of the common law of this State. Under this assumption, we are of opinion that taking into view the preamble to the declaration, in which the defendant is charged to be an innkeeper, a cause of action under the law set forth, is substantially shown. The demurrer to the declaration was, therefore, properly overruled--and we only remark farther, that it is no more necessary in this than in other cases, to set out the law of the land on which the action is founded.
The common law of England in regard to the liability of innkeepers so far as not changed by statute, is the common law here--and it is not necessary to set out the law in pleading.
The law with regard to the liability of inn keepers being one of extreme rigor, it is essential to the safety of all persons who may be engaged in the business of entertaining others in their houses for reward, that the extent of its application should be clearly defined, and that it should not be carried beyond its proper limits.
An innkeeper is prima facie liable for all losses which happen to the goods of his guests in his inn, all such being attributed to him on the ground of public policy, and the confidence necessarily reposed in him, and on account of the difficulty of proving actual negligence. But he is not liable if the loss be occasioned by external force or robbery--or if it be attributable to the neglect of the guest, or to the act of his servant or companion.
An innkeeper is prima facie liable for all losses which happen to the goods of his guest in the inn. But not for a loss by external force or robbery, or if the loss occur by the neglect of the guest, or the act of the servant of the guest or his companion.
This being the extent of his liability to his guests, it is important to determine who is an innkeeper, and who may claim the benefit of this liability.
It was laid down in Colyer's case, (8 Coke, 32,) that common inns were instituted for passengers and wayfaring men. And we think it will be found that the great liability imposed upon them, is for the benefit of travellers and transient person, who are often compelled to resort to inns for shelter and entertainment without the means of knowing the character of the host; and without the opportunity of securing themselves against loss or damage to their goods. A common innkeeper is defined to be " a person who makes it his business to entertain travellers and passengers, and provide lodging and necessaries for them and their horses and attendants:" But it has been decided that a man may be an innkeeper, and liable as such, though he have no provision for horses. It is not necessary that he should have a sign indicating that he is an innkeeper, but it must be his business to entertain travellers and passengers.
An innkeeper is one who makes it his business to entertain travellers or passengers and provide lodging and necessaries for them and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dold v. Outrigger Hotel, 5219
...refuse to receive an applicant. Do Wolf v. Ford, 193 N.Y. 397, 86 N.E. 527 (1908); Browne v. Brandt, 1 K.B. 696 (1902); Kisten v. Hildebrand, 48 Ky. 72 (1848). It is well recognized that punitive damages are recoverabe for breach of an innkeeper's duty to his guest where the innkeeper's con......
-
Langford v. Vandaveer
...an inn it was necessary that there should be a stable provided for the accommodation of the horses of the travelers. Kisten v. Hildebrand, 9 B.Mon. 72, 48 Ky. 72; 43 C.J.S., Innkeepers, § 1. In process of time 'inn' and 'hotel' became synonymous. With the advent of automobile traffic came s......
-
Carter v. Hobbs
......Foster, 1. Salk. 388; and the goods of a permanent boarder are not. protected as those of a guest: Manning v. Wells, 9. Humph. 746; Kisten v. Hildebrand, 48 Ky. 72, 9 B. Mon. 72, 74. So if a person, who is a guest, have a room. specially for the purpose of showing or selling his goods, ......