“Once upon a time Catherine Dansey went to the boarding-house of Elizabeth F. Richardson with her luggage, and was duly received within the mansion. One day some of Mrs. Dansey’s goods, chattels, or knick-knacks were stolen, and when the matter was investigated it appeared that the thief had entered through the front door—which had been left open by the servant—and that Mrs. Richardson knew that her Biddy was in the constant habit of neglecting to shut the door. Mrs. R. would not settle the affair amicably, so Mrs. D. had the law of her.[390] At the trial the judge told the jury that a boarding-house keeper was bound to take due and reasonable care about the safe-keeping of a guest’s goods; and then, it having struck his lordship that perhaps his twelve enlightened countrymen, who sat before him in the box, did not know too well what due care might be, he proceeded to explain to them that it was such care as a prudent housekeeper would take in the management of his own house for the protection of his own goods. The judge went on to say that Mrs. Richardson’s servant leaving the door open might be a want of such care, but the mistress was not answerable for such negligence, unless she herself had been guilty of some neglect (as in keeping such a servant with a knowledge of her habits). The jury, as in duty bound, took the law from his lordship and said that Dame R. was not liable.”
“Then Mrs. Dansey had to perform to the tune of a nice little bill of costs, and grin and bear it,” remarked the embryo Coke.
“She was rather stubborn about it, and applied for a new trial.”
“Did she get it?” asked Coke in futuro.
“No. The whole four judges gave it as their opinion that a boarding-house keeper is not bound to keep a guest’s baggage safely to the same extent as an innkeeper, but that the law implies an undertaking on his part to take due and proper care of the boarder’s belongings, although nothing was said about it; and that neglecting to take due care of an outer door might be a breach of such duty.”
“But did they say what due and proper care amounted to?” was queried.
“Yes; but, as doctors often do, they disagreed on the point. Judge Wightman could not see that a boarding-house keeper is a bailee of the goods of his guest at all, or that he is bound to take more care of them (when they are no further given into his care than by being in his house) than he as a prudent man would take of his own. If he were guilty of negligence in the selection of his servants, or in keeping such as he might well distrust, his lordship said that he could hardly be considered as taking the care of a prudent owner, and so might be liable for a loss occasioned by a servant’s neglect. Erle, J., said that as there was no delivery of the goods by Mrs. D. to Mrs. R., no contract to keep them with care and deliver them again, and nothing paid in respect of the goods, there was no duty of keeping them placed upon Richardson. Judge Coleridge and Lord Campbell looked at the case through spectacles of another color—the former said that a guest at such a house is entitled to due and reasonable care absolutely; he comes to the house and pays his money for certain things to be rendered in return; he stipulates directly with the master, having no control himself over the servants, and having nothing to do with the master’s judiciousness or care or good fortune in selecting them; and the master undertakes to the guest not merely to be careful in the choice of his servants, but absolutely to take due and reasonable care of his goods. Lord Campbell said that he could not go so far as to say that in no case can a boarding-house keeper be liable for the loss of goods through the negligence of a servant, although he himself was guiltless of any negligence in hiring or keeping the domestic. If one employs servants to keep the outer door shut when there is danger of thieves, while they are performing that duty they are acting within the scope of their employment, and he is answerable for their negligence. He is not answerable for the consequences of a felony, or even a willful trespass committed by them; but the general rule is, that the master is responsible for the negligence of his servants while engaged in offices which he employs them to do—and his lordship (for I have been quoting his sentiments) said that he was not aware how the keeper of a boarding-house could be an exception to the general rule.”
I stopped here, and was rather chagrined to catch one of those present saying to another—
“Do you remember what old Coates said about his wife?”
“No—what?”