REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| Date | 01 July 1955 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1955.tb00309.x |
| Author | L. J. Blom‐Cooper |
| Published date | 01 July 1955 |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
SECOND REPORT
OF
THE
LAW REFORM
COMMITPEE
ON
THE
LAW
OF
INNKEEPERS’
LIABILITIES
FOR
PROPERTY
OF
TRAVELLERS, GUESTS
A
REVIEW
of the law of innkeepers had, of recent years, become an
urgent need and
on
that score alone this report would indeed
be
welcome. Its claim, however, to our further gratitude is due to its
admirable conciseness
in
presenting the various problems and the
recommendations
it
makes consequent upon the present anachron-
isms reflect a balanced view of the reforms needed. What is said
hereafter, therefore, is for the most part by way of amplification
and reinforcement of the views expressed
in
the report.
AND
RESIDENTS. (Cmd.
9161;
May
1954;
4d.)
Definition
of
an inn
On
this question the Committee appears to have been
in
two
minds. Whilst recommending that any new legislation should
contain a definition based
on
the existing common law meaning of
the term, the Committee has been unable to suggest a definition
for the guidance of any future Parliamentary draftsman and has,
moreover, somewhat resiled from the view that a definition is needed
by concluding that the difficulty of deciding whether
or
not any
given establishment is an inn
“
is probably greater in theory than in
practice, for
it
seems likely that the owner of premises whose status
might be doubtful will have concluded the question against himself
by exhibiting the statutory notice under the Act
of
1863.”
With
regard to the latter observation the Committee appears to have
overlooked the decision in
Olley
v.
Marlborough
Court
Ltd.
([1949]
1
K.B.
532).
In
that case a notice under the Act of
1863
had been
exhibited in a conspicuous place
in
a
“
private residential hotel.”
The trial judge, Oliver
J.
([1948] 1
All E.R.
955
at p.
956),
without
stating his reasons found that the hotel was not a common inn and
the Court of Appeal were not disposed to disturb that finding, and
as negligence had been clearly established
it
was indeed dnecessary
for the court to decide whether the hotel was a common inn (see
Singleton L.J. at
p.
545).
Bucknill L.J. (at
p.
544,
however,
commented that the establishment in his opinion was a private resi-
dential hotel, at any rate more like a private hotel than a common
inn.
It
would seem, therefore, that the display of the notice will not
be conclusive
of
the matter; moreover, in these circumstances
it
would be more desirable to define what is an inn rather than to leave
the matter in doubt
so
that a proprietor
or
owner would not have
to speculate as to whether any notice he may display will be wholly
effective.
374
To continue reading
Request your trial