Story Case

Lowe was a passenger on the Santa Fe Railroad, riding in a sleeping car, belonging to the Pullman Car Company, from Chicago to Kansas City. When he entered the car, he gave his luggage to a porter, who placed it on an upper berth. It was there the next morning. While Lowe was breakfasting, a collision occurred, and his baggage was destroyed. He brought an action to recover its value from the car company. It was shown that the loss did not occur as the result of negligence on the part of the car company. Liability, therefore, depended upon whether or not the company was an innkeeper, or common carrier.

Ruling Court Case No. 1. Pinkerton Vs. Woodward, Volume 33 California Reports, Page 557

Pinkerton and three other men, returning to their homes with a large quantity of gold dust, temporarily stopped at an inn called "The What Cheer House," belonging to Woodward, who was also proprietor. The guests put their gold dust into a safe, according to the rules of the house. The safe, however, was never locked, and the gold dust was stolen. There was a restaurant in the basement of the house, and in this suit, Woodward maintained that for this reason he was maintaining a lodging house, and, therefore, was not liable for the loss.

Justice Rhodes rendered the opinion: "Although the restaurant was conducted in connection with the lodging department, this did not change the business to a lodging house. Where a person, by means usually employed in that business, holds himself out to the world as an innkeeper, and in that capacity is accustomed to receive travelers, and a traveler, relying on such representation, goes to the house to receive such entertainment as he has occasion for, the relation of innkeeper and guest is created. Such was the case here, and the defendant, as a public servant, is liable as an insurer of the gold dust." Therefore, judgment was given for Pinkerton for the value of the gold dust.

Ruling Court Case No. 2. Mason Vs. Thompson, Volume 9 Pickering, Massachusetts Reports, Page 280

One Giles hired a horse, chaise, and harness of Mason, the plaintiff. Giles left the property with Thompson, an innkeeper, paying him for the keep. While it was in the care of the innkeeper, it was stolen, but without fault on the part of Thompson. Giles neither lodged nor had any refreshment at the inn. Mason brought this action to recover the value of the stolen property.

Judge Wilde delivered the opinion: "On grounds of public policy, to protect travelers not only against negligence, but also against the dishonest practices of the innkeeper or his servants, innkeepers as well as common carriers are regarded as insurers of the property committed to their care, and are bound to make restitution for any injury or loss not caused by an act of God, or the common enemy, or the neglect or fault of the owner of the property. To constitute one a guest, neither lodge or refreshment is necessary. If one leaves his horse, the innkeeper is liable as a public servant for its loss." Judgment was given for Mason.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The distinction between the employment of a public servant and private employment, is important, because of the extraordinary liability of the former. A publie servant is liable for all loss to goods placed in his possession, although he has not himself been negligent, unless the loss is caused by the act of God, the public enemy or the owner's own negligence. The term "public enemy" includes nations at war and pirates who are considered at war with all mankind. It does not include robbers, thieves, rioters, and insurgents. Many cases involving loss caused by the act of God are those where goods have been ruined because of floods, storms, or cold weather. For these, a common carrier or other public servant is not liable, unless the public servant has himself been negligent in permitting the act of God to operate. To excuse the public servant because of the act of God, the latter must be the sole and immediate cause of the loss.

The Story Case is based upon the facts in Lowe vs. Pullman Car Company, Volume 28 Nebraska Reports, Page 239, where the court held that the services of the car company were the same as those of an innkeeper and the company was liable as an insurer.