Whitehouse v. R. & W. Pickett [1907] ScotLR 113 (16 November 1907)

Whitehouse v. R. & W. Pickett [1907] ScotLR 113 (16 November 1907)

The pursuer failed to prove that the bag was expressly deposited for safe custody or that the loss occurred through the wilful act, default, or neglect of the innkeeper or their servants. The mere disappearance of the property, even by theft from within the hotel, does not establish negligence without specific evidence of a breach of duty. Liability is therefore limited to £30 under the Innkeepers' Liability Act 1863.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 113
Parties
Pursuer: G. W. Whitehouse; Defenders: R. & W. Pickett
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 November 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Extra Division
Outcome
appeal allowed in part; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; defenders found liable only to the extent of £30; otherwise assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics
Innkeeper's Liability, Negligence, Burden of Proof, Safe Custody, Statutory Interpretation
Tort Hospitality Law Innkeeper's Liability Negligence Burden of Proof Safe Custody Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. W. Whitehouse

Pursuer

R. & W. Pickett

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Extra Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the innkeepers were liable beyond £30 for the loss of a guest's valuables under the Innkeepers' Liability Act 1863
  2. 2 Whether the bag was deposited expressly for safe custody under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the loss occurred through the wilful act, default, or neglect of the innkeeper or their servants

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that the bag was expressly deposited for safe custody or that the loss occurred through the wilful act, default, or neglect of the innkeeper or their servants. The mere disappearance of the property, even by theft from within the hotel, does not establish negligence without specific evidence of a breach of duty. Liability is therefore limited to £30 under the Innkeepers' Liability Act 1863.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; defenders found liable only to the extent of £30; otherwise assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

  • Decree for £30 in favour of pursuer as tendered
  • Defenders assoilzied quoad ultra (absolved from further liability)