Shultz v. Wall

Citations

• 134 Pa. 262
• 19 A. 742
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 699

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. An innkeeper is bound to pay for goods stolen in bis house from a guest, unless stolen by the guest’s servant or companion ; and he is not absolved from this liability, in any case, by the fact that no negligence upon his part has operated to bring the theft about or to render it possible : I-Iouser v. Tully, 62 Pa. 92; Walsh v. Porterfield, 87 Pa. 376.</p> <p>2. But the conduct of the guest, contributing to his loss, whether voluntary or negligent, is always a defence; and his failure to deposit valuables in a safe place provided for the purpose by the landlord, after express notice so to do, and his neglect to make use of sufficient fastenings provided for the security of the room from which they were stolen, are evidence of contributory negligence.</p> <p>3. The provisions of the act of May 7, 1855, P. L. 479, in regard to the places where notice that a place for the deposit of valuables has been provided in a hotel shall be posted, may be said to be mandatory, in the sense that, as they provide for constructive notice, they must be complied with strictly, if constructive notice bo relied on; but, if actual notice be shown, these provisions become immaterial.</p> <p>4. Jurors are not bound to believe an incredible story because no witness contradicts it; wherefore, if the circumstances, surrounding a theft in a hotel, indicate that it could not have occurred if the guest had fastened the door of his room, the question of contributory negligence is for the jury, notwithstanding the guest’s testimony that he did fasten the door is uncontradicted.</p>