There is much conflict at the present time as to the exact extent of the inn-keeper's special bailment liability.

The different positions taken on this point have been summed up by a recent writer on this subject:

"It is the duty of the inn-keeper not only to receive, but to keep safely the goods of his guests as long as they are within the inn, infra hospitium. Decisions are not in harmony as to the extent of the inn-keeper's liability for losses to the goods. Three rules have been suggested:

"(1) That the inn-keeper is prima facie liable for the loss of goods in his charge, but he may excuse himself by showing that he was free from negligence.

"(2) That the inn-keeper is excused if he can show the loss was due to inevitable accident or to irresistible force.

"(3) That the inn-keeper is an insurer of the goods against all losses not due to the act of God, the public enemy, or the negligence of the guest.

"The weight of authority is probably with the last rule, but the weight of reason and the trend of legislation is with the second.13 In New York, after the case of Hulett vs. Swift, the rule was modified by statute so as to excuse inn-keepers from liability for loss by accidental fires."

11Relation determinable at will of guest. Shoecraft vs. Barley, 25 Iowa, 553.

12 Glenn vs. Jackson, 93 Slo., 342.

The third rule was formerly universally recognized. This rule grew up in England during the middle ages and was the result of the opportunities and temptations offered to the inn-keepers of the period to either rob their guests themselves or to assist in the robbery. For the protection of the guest it, therefore, became necessary to place a heavier degree of responsibility on the inn-keeper. The hardship of this old rule has been constantly diminished as the necessity for it passed away.

"Both the authorities and the analogies of the law in other cases support the view that an inn-keeper may, either expressly or impliedly, contract with his guests for a limited liability in regard to the guest's effects, and, on principle, no good reason can be perceived why this should not be so. The transaction concerns the parties only; it involves simply rights of property, and the public can have no interest in requiring the responsibility of insurance to accompany the accommodation of the guests, in the face of an agreement for its relinquishment. By such an agreement the inn-keeper becomes, with reference to the particular transaction, an ordinary bailee.14 Notice to a guest, given by an inn-keeper, to the effect that he will be liable for the guest's effects only to a certain extent, or on certain conditions, is sufficient,15 but an inn-keeper cannot limit his liability, in the absence of statutory authority, by a general notice." 16

13 Goddard on Bailments, Sect. 181.

14 Sanders vs. Spencer, 3 Dyer,

266b.

15 Richmond vs. Smith, 8 B. & C,

9, 15 E. C. L., 144. 16 Stanton vs. Leland, 4 E. D.

Smith (N. Y.), 88.