Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532; [1949] 1 All ER 127

KEY POINTS

• Negligence is an important consideration in cases involving residential hotels and boarding houses that do not fall under the legal definition of an "inn."

  • The visibility of a notice under the Innkeepers' Liability Act of 1863, must be conspicuous in the hall.

  • Notices within guest bedrooms stating that the proprietors disclaim responsibility for lost or stolen articles unless handed to the manager for safekeeping are significant.

• It is important to note that there is no exemption from a hotel's liability for its servants' negligence.

  • Even if a guest enters into a contract for an indeterminate period before being aware of the notice, the notice itself does not become part of the agreement.

  • In a particular case, a guest hung the bedroom key on a keyboard in the reception office, only to have it stolen later.

• In situations where goods are stolen from a guest's bedroom, establishing negligence often hinges on whether the hotel servants lack reasonable care.

• The party claiming negligence has the burden of proof, and the circumstances surrounding the theft should be thoroughly examined.

FACTS

• In a case involving a private residential hotel (Marlborough Court Hotel), a notice inside a bedroom explicitly stated that the proprietors disclaimed responsibility for lost or stolen articles unless handed to the manageress for safe custody. 

  • The notice further advised guests to deposit valuables in a sealed package and obtain a receipt for safekeeping.

  • Concurrently, a notice pursuant to section 3 of the Innkeepers' Liability Act of 1863 was prominently displayed in the hotel's hall, establishing legal obligations.

• Despite the conspicuous display of the Innkeepers' Liability Act notice, it was determined that the residential hotel did not qualify as an inn under common law.

• Upon their arrival at the hotel, a man and his wife adhered to the customary practice by paying for a week's board and residence in advance. Upon ascending to the assigned bedroom, they encountered the notice regarding the hotel's limited liability for lost or stolen items.

JUDGEMENT

• In judgment by Singleton and Denning L.J., it was ruled that the terms of a bedroom notice did not form part of the contract between guests and hotel proprietors, as the contract was established before the notice was visible.

  • The notice, applicable to an indeterminate period, could only become part of the contract upon termination. Denning L.J. emphasized strict proof for contract-based exemptions from common law liability.

  • On constructing the bedroom notice, Bucknill L.J. held it wouldn't be perceived as exempting the hotel proprietors from liability for theft due to servant negligence. Singleton and Denning L.J. agreed, stating the notice didn't apply if the house wasn't a common inn.

• In a theft incident, Denning L.J. clarified the hotel was liable for negligence, as the guest's entrusted key facilitated the theft.

• The burden of proving reasonable care with the key rested on the hotel proprietors under common law.

COMMENTARY

• This case shows the legal complexities surrounding negligence in residential hotels.

• Include the importance of visible notices under the Innkeepers' Liability Act, the absence of exemption for a hotel's liability due to its servants' negligence, and the intricate legal dynamics revealed in a private residential hotel case.

• The judgment by Singleton and Denning L.J. emphasizes the need for strict proof in contract-based exemptions, while Bucknill L.J. and the mentioned justices concur that a bedroom notice does not absolve hotel proprietors from liability for servant negligence.

• Denning L.J. clarifies the hotel's liability and the burden of proving reasonable care with entrusted keys under common law in a theft incident.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Plaintiff was staying in Defendant’s hotel, paid for his room and only once in his room did he see the notice exempting Defendant’s liability for theft etc.

• When Defendant’s staff negligently let a thief into Plaintiff’s room, Plaintiff sued Defendant.

• The CA held that the sign was not valid since the contract was already concluded by the time Plaintiff was able to see the sign.

  • Therefore to allow the sign to have effect would amount to a unilateral variation of terms, which is impossible.