Russell v. Fagan

• Decision Date: 29 November 1886
• Citation: 8 A. 258,12 Del. 389
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: MARSHALL J. RUSSELL v. THOMAS FAGAN

8 A. 258

12 Del. 389

MARSHALL J. RUSSELL v. THOMAS FAGAN

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

November 29, 1886

ACTION ON THE CASE to recover for the loss of a mare while in the stable attached to the defendant's inn.

The facts fully appear from the charge of the Court.

Verdict for the defendant.

Levi C Bird and A. E. Sanborn, for plaintiff, cited:

Shaw v Berry, 31 Maine, 478; Coggs v. Bernard, 1 Smith L Cas., 375; Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal., 221; Story, Balm., § 477; York v. Grindstone, 1 Salk., 388; Yorke v. Greenaugh, 2 Ld. Raym., 866; Sibley v. Aldrich, 33 N. H., 553; Mason v. Thompson, 9 Pick., 280; Peet v. McGraw, 25 Wend., 653; Hulett v. Swift, 42 Barb., 230; Bennett v. Mellor, 5 T. R., 273; Hall v. Pike, 100 Mass. 495; McDaniels v. Robinson, 26 Vt. 316; Clute v. Wiggins, 7 Am. Dec., 448; Norcross v. Norcross, 53 Maine, 163; Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 557; Berkshire W. Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush., 417; Gile v. Libby, 36 Barb., 70; Washburn v. Jones, 14 Barb., 193; Jalie v. Cardinal, 35 Wis. 118; McDonald v. Edgerton, 5 Barb., 560; Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485; Richmond v. Smith, 8 Barn. & C., 9.

Charles B. Lore and Harry Emmons, for defendant, cited:

Story, Bailm., 9th Ed., §§ 470, 472, 482; Merritt v. Claghorn, 23 Vt. 177; 2 Kent Com., 592, 593; Calye's Case, 8 Coke, Rep., 32a; Dawson v. Chamney, 48 E. C. L., 164; Burgess v. Clements, 4 Maule & S., 306; Cutter v. Bonney, 14 Am. Law Reg., 445; Howth v. Franklin, 20 Tex. 798; Redf. Com. Cas., 595-597; McDaniels v. Robinson, 26 Vt. 316; Johnson v. Richardson, 17 Ill. 302; Richmond v. Smith, 8 Barn. & C., 9; Metcalf v. Hess, 14 Ill. 129; Johnson v. Richardson, 17 Ill. 302; 1 Pars. Cont., 4th Ed., 629; Berkshire W. Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush., 417; York v. Grindstone, 1 Salk., 388; Binns v. Pigot, 9 Carr. & P., 208; Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485; Ingallsbee v. Wood, 33 N.Y. 577; Healey v. Gray, 68 Maine, 489.

OPINION

COMEGYS, C. J. , charging the jury:

This action is brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant damages to the extent of $ 500 for the breaking of one of the hind legs of the plaintiff's mare, while she was in the defendant's stable in Wilmington.

The plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, resident at Landenberg, in Chester County, and the defendant, at the time of the disaster, was and yet is a common innkeeper or hotel keeper at the sign of the White Horse in this city. On the day before the time of the accident the plaintiff, having occasion to Wilmington, came here in the afternoon and went to the defendant's inn, where he put up his mare and carriage, and at the same time delivered a quantity of oats to be fed to the horse during his stay in the city, and also a bottle of liniment, which he directed should be rubbed from time to time on her hind leg, in which she was lame--as he said--from the travel of eighteen miles. He then went away and did not return again till the next afternoon. He had no personal entertainment at the inn, nor did he ask for any--having it provided for him elsewhere.

The next morning it was discovered that the mare's leg aforesaid was broken, according to the defendant's two witnesses, by her attempting to rise in the stable, after she had shortly before lain down. Their statement is that in the morning, about 10 o'clock, they being in the stable, the mare (which the groom stated was very lame when she arrived) fell in her effort to rise; and that, one of them saying that she had broken her leg, they examined her and found that his assertion was verified. The groom swore that she had lain down for about fifteen minutes, when she attempted to rise with the consequence alleged.

The plaintiff, as a witness, in reply to a question put by his counsel, stated that when the mare was put in the stall he discovered that there was a hole in one of the side walls, a board there having been broken; but it was not stated by him that he called anyone's attention to that fact. This statement was denied by the defendant, by his groom, and by the other witness, all of whom testified that there was no hole as stated by the plaintiff; and the latter swore that a short time before he had put all the stalls in good repair, as the defendant had also sworn.

The mare was killed to relieve her suffering. This was before the plaintiff came back to the premises. As he had furnished the oats for the feed of his mare, he paid nothing to the defendant for her grain diet; but he did pay twenty-five cents for the hay given her in the stable, which was attached to and part of the inn property. Payment for the loss of the mare was demanded by the plaintiff from the defendant, but refused by the latter. Two witnesses for the plaintiff found the mare to have been worth $ 200; the plaintiff put her value, in his testimony upon that point, at $ 50 more.

These I believe to be the material facts in this case; and upon them the plaintiff asks a verdict at your hands for the proved value of the mare, with interest from the time of the casualty, the 7th day of September, 1884; and the defendant resists such demand, insisting that no liability on his part can arise out of them--his principal ground being that the plaintiff was not a guest of his inn, and his other that the accident was the result of some natural or other defect of the bone of the mare's leg, of which he could not have any knowledge, nor against accident from which he could protect himself; and that therefore the occurrence was one against which human foresight could make no provision, and comes within the exception to extreme liability in the case of carriers known to the law as inevitable accident. This we understand to be his second point.

We will briefly discuss these legal contentions of the parties and instruct you what the law is by which in this case you are to be governed:

The first question to be decided is: Was the plaintiff a guest of the defendant at the time of the accident to the mare? If he was, then what liability to him on account of receiving the mare by defendant and placing her in his stable to be served with hay, fell upon or was incurred by such defendant? If he became liable for her return to him in as good condition as she was when the defendant received her, is there anything which will excuse such liability, and if so, did such excuse exist in this case, upon the testimony of the defendant and his witnesses? These are, under the circumstances, very interesting questions, none of which have before, in this State, been presented for consideration to a court and jury. They concern the whole traveling public, and that body of men very numerous in this country, called innkeepers, or keepers of what are now called hotels.

It is said that inns exist for the benefit of the traveling community. In fact they are almost as much a necessity to travelers as the public means of locomotion are. There was a time when anyone could keep an inn; but that is now long past, and none are allowed to maintain them but persons regularly licensed by public authority. In them wayfaring people of every kind, if they can afford the expense which the host charges for that service, can be accommodated with diet and lodging; in other words, can be entertained in their journeyings. The necessities of such people oblige them to solicit entertainment at the public or common inns, both for themselves and their beasts where they travel with such; otherwise they would be without shelter and food. Because of this necessity and that the host or entertainer is generally unknown to a party resorting to his house, or inn, and that such party is compelled to trust himself and his property to his keeping, and that he is charged by the innkeeper for such entertainment of himself and his beasts, and the custody of his property, the law holds the innkeeper to a strict liability; not from any contract between the parties, but from the duty growing out of his public employment. One of the incidents of his business of common innkeeper is that he is bound to receive and entertain all such as apply to him for that purpose, and are in fit condition to be taken into a public inn as guests, provided there be room for that purpose. There are statutory exceptions to this rule, but I am not now concerned to speak of them. Another of them is that he is bound for the safe keeping and well keeping of the beasts of the guest, and his goods, that is, his luggage, apparel, money, etc., so that if any of them be stolen, or otherwise lost or damaged in his inn, while the relation of host and guest continues, he must make good such loss or damage.

Everyone who is received into an inn and has entertainment there, for which the innkeeper has compensation by way of remuneration or reward for his service, is a guest. The relation of host and guest exists. This general definition, however, only includes those who in a legal sense are travelers or wayfarers; and boarders, or persons who reside in the same place, are not embraced by it. It is only travelers or wayfarers that the innkeeper is bound to accept as guests, and it is for them alone that he is under extraordinary responsibility for the safe keeping of beasts and goods. Inns are for them, as the books teach us; that is, for their sustentation and nourishment and protection of their goods from depredation by thieves and robbers at stages of repose in their journeyings.

The liability of innkeepers to others than those just mentioned is not so great; but it is very adequate. Taking the definition before given in its strict sense, it would seem that the term "guest" only applies to those who lodge or obtain meat or drink, at an inn, for compensation to the innkeeper. But this, is not the case, as we think. Upon this subject the authorities are,...