This Bill is concerned with the duties, liabilities and rights of innkeepers or, as it is more apt to describe them nowadays, hotel proprietors. It is one of the measures foreshadowed in the Government's published Programme of Law Reform and its purpose is to amend the law relating to innkeepers so as to bring it into closer accord with modern social needs and conditions. In addition, the opportunity is being availed of to clarify and restate the law in a single comprehensive statute, which will obviate the necessity to refer to previous enactments.
The obligations and rights of innkeepers are based on the common law and their origin can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Whether the rules derived from mediaeval views on causation or on the nature of a public calling, or from a commonly held suspicion that innkeepers were in league with highwaymen to pillage travellers, must remain a matter of speculation and controversy. What is beyond question is that the rules exist today and that basically they serve a useful, and, indeed, essential, purpose in modern society.
It is the common law duty of the innkeeper to receive and lodge every traveller at any hour of the day or night, unless he has reasonable grounds of refusal, and to receive any property which the traveller brings with him, provided there is accommodation for it at the inn. Breach of this duty renders the innkeeper liable to criminal as well as civil proceedings. The innkeeper is under a strict liability for the loss of all property brought to the inn by a traveller irrespective of whether it is lost by theft, through the negligence of another guest, or by the acts of the innkeeper's servants. The only cases in which the innkeeper can escape this liability are where the loss arises from an act of God or of the enemies of the State or the guest's own negligence. The Innkeepers' Liability Act, 1863, modified the liability by providing that an innkeeper shall not be liable to any guest for the loss of property to an amount greater than £30, unless the property is lost through the negligence of the innkeeper or his servants or has been deposited expressly for safe custody with the innkeeper. This limitation does not extend to horses or other live animals or to any carriage, motor car or other vehicle. The innkeeper has the right to detain the property of a guest who fails to pay his bill and, under the Innkeepers Act, 1878, he has the right to sell the property after six weeks in order to satisfy the debt.
Social and economic conditions have undergone considerable change since the existing law relating to innkeepers first took shape and, as might be expected, it is now out of date and anomalous in a number of respects. With a view to remedying this situation, I have had a detailed study of the matter carried out by my Department in the course of which consideration has been given to the research and ideas of experts in this field and the legislation of other countries. The present Bill represents the outcome of that work. It restates the fundamental principles of the existing law, but in a form which should prove more adequate and appropriate to our times.
Senators will notice that the term "inn" is being discarded in favour of "hotel". This is a necessary concession to modern usage, although there are some who may regret that the lovely old English word "inn", with its subtle hint of the charm and hospitality of a bygone age, is being pushed into virtual oblivion. Such is the penalty we must pay for progress. The Bill imposes on the proprietors of hotels, as defined in Section 1, new statutory duties, liabilities and rights in substitution for those at present attaching to innkeepers under the common law. The definition of "hotel" reproduces the substance of the present common law concept of an inn and automatically includes every establishment registered as a hotel with Bord Fáilte Éireann. This latter provision is new and is designed to remedy one of the unsatisfactory features of the present law, namely, the difficulty of ascertaining whether a particular premises is an inn. In future, persons staying at registered hotels can be certain that they will enjoy the benefit of the protection accorded to them by the Bill. Apart from registered hotels, the question whether a particular premises constitutes a hotel for the purposes of the Bill will be a question of fact in every case. In can be taken, however, that, in general, guest houses, boarding houses, and similar establishments do not come within the ambit of the Bill.
Section 3 re-enacts the duty of a hotel proprietor to receive all persons presenting themselves and requiring sleeping accommodation, food or drink and to provide them therewith, unless he has reasonable grounds for refusal. In that connection, I notice that one of the columnists in our daily papers expressed some anxiety that this ancient privilege, which the ordinary citizen has, might be taken away from him and I would like to assure that particular columnist and the House that this is not so. It may be observed that the duty applies to all persons whether or not they come to the hotel under a special contract. It is very common practice nowadays for people to book hotel accommodation in advance, and, although by doing so they acquire a contractual right to the accommodation which they have reserved, I am satisfied that it is desirable that they should also enjoy the benefit of the statutory protection accorded by this Bill. Section 3 provides that, subject to the terms of any special contract, the hotel proprietor must supply the desired accommodation, food, or drink at the charges for the time being current at the hotel. This provision is necessary to ensure that a proprietor will not be able to offer a prospective guest facilities at a price which he knows will deter the guest from accepting and in that way evade his statutory obligations.
It has been argued that in modern times the duty to receive all comers is an anachronism and ought to be abolished. I am unable to accept that point of view. It seems to me that, if the proprietor of a premises holds himself out as prepared to cater for all and sundry, it is only reasonable that he should be bound to receive every person who comes in a fit state to be received and who is willing to pay for the services and facilities of the hotel. I am sure the House will agree with me that it would not be in the public interest or in the interest of the tourist industry that hotels should be able to reserve their hospitality for selected guests.
I should like to point out that the duty to receive imposed by Section 3 will extend to all persons who seek admission to the hotel as guests. The existing common law concept of confining the duty to travellers is being abandoned. I am satisfied that this concept is unreal and no longer of any significance under present day conditions. In England, the Court of Appeal has admitted as much by holding that a person who visits his local inn for a drink is a traveller even though his home may be only a short distance away.
Section 5 of the Bill provides that it shall be the duty of a hotel proprietor to receive property brought by a guest provided there is suitable accommodation for it at the hotel. This will oblige the proprietor to admit the luggage and other property normally brought by a guest but it will leave him free to refuse items of an exceptional character such as, for example, dangerous or cumbersome articles or articles likely to cause inconvenience or offence to other guests. A proprietor will, for example, be entitled to refuse to admit dogs or other animals if he has no proper accommodation for them. In other words, you will not be entitled to have an elephant admitted to the hotel unless the proprietor has special accommodation for it.
Section 6 of the Bill provides that the proprietor shall be strictly liable for any damage to, or loss or destruction of, property brought to the hotel by a guest. Although the historical circumstances which gave rise to the concept of strict liability have largely disappeared, there is clearly still good reason why a hotel proprietor should be under a special obligation in regard to the safety of the goods which guests bring with them and upon which, in return, the proprietor has a lien for his charges. The visitor to the modern hotel is, as much as in the past, exposed to the risk of loss through negligence on the part of the proprietor or his servants, but it would often, by the nature of the case, be difficult for him to prove negligence, as he would have to do if strict liability were abolished. For the overseas visitor the difficulty of obtaining legal redress in such a case would be even greater. I have considered this matter very carefully and I am satisfied that it is entirely fitting that the principle of strict liability should be retained. I am confirmed in this view by the fact that the principle is accepted in most Western European countries and that it has long been enshrined in most legal systems throughout the civilized world. If we in this country were to abolish strict liability, visitors to Irish hotels would be placed in a much less favourable position than in other European countries and I have no doubt that such a situation would react unfavourably on the tourist industry here.
Although the Bill preserves the basic obligations of innkeepers in respect of property, it makes an important change by confining those obligations to the property of guests who stay overnight. I think that it is entirely inconsistent with the original notion on which innkeepers' liability was based that the obligations in respect of property should extend to articles brought to a hotel by casual visitors who merely call for a meal or a drink. Indeed, the present law has led to the anomalous situation wherein a casual visitor dining at a hotel is indemnified against the loss of any property which he brings with him, including a motor car, but is not so indemnified if he eats at a restaurant. To remove this anomaly and to restore the law to what was clearly originally intended, the obligations imposed on a hotel proprietor by Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill will extend only to the property of a guest who has booked sleeping accommodation.
The liability imposed by Section 6, that is to say, the strict liability for loss or damage, is being extended to property of which the proprietor takes charge outside the hotel, as, for example, where he sends a servant to collect the luggage of a guest from a railway station. This is a logical extension of the scope of strict liability. In so far as a motor vehicle is concerned an important new safeguard is being introduced for the proprietor in that his liability for loss or damage will not apply unless he has been previously notified that the vehicle has been brought to the hotel. This, I submit, is also a logical amendment of the existing law, as it is manifestly unfair to a hotel proprietor to burden him with liability in respect of a motor vehicle of the presence of which he may be totally unaware.
In a Circuit Court case some years ago it was held by the Court that by virtue of the Accidental Fires Act, 1943, a hotel proprietor was not liable to a guest for damage caused by accidental fire occurring on the hotel premises. The Act in question was framed to deal with liability for damage caused by fire accidentally spreading from one premises to another and I am satisfied that it was not intended to apply to the liability which a hotel proprietor has towards his guests. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, Section 11 of the Bill makes it clear that the Act of 1943 does not apply in such cases.
The strict liability of a hotel proprietor will not apply where the damage to, or loss of, property can be shown to be due to an unforeseeable and irresistible act of nature or an act of war. This follows the existing common law rule. In the case of contributory negligence by a guest the position will be governed by the Civil Liability Act, 1961, which provides for the apportionment of liability having regard to the relative degrees of fault of the parties. If the hotel proprietor is found to be guiltless of what may be called moral fault, while the guest is guilty of negligence, the whole loss will be borne by the guest.
Section 7 of the Bill increases from £30 to £100 the existing limitation on innkeepers' liability in certain cases. This change is necessary in view of the fall in the value of money since the Innkeepers Liability Act, 1863, was enacted. In fact, the view was expressed in Dáil Éireann that the figure of £100 is not high enough and that it ought to be increased substantially. While I would be prepared to consider any suggestions which Senators may have to make in this regard, I personally feel that a limit of £100 is, on the whole, reasonable in relation to present day values. As under existing law, the limitation will not apply to motor cars or property which is deposited with the proprietor expressly for safe custody or property which is damaged or lost through the negligence of the proprietor. In order that a proprietor may obtain the benefit of the limitation, a notice in the form prescribed in the First Schedule of the Bill will have to be displayed conspicuously in the hotel premises. This notice will have to be in both Irish and English and it will replace the existing notice prescribed by the British legislation of 1863.
As I mentioned at the outset, the duty of innkeepers to receive travellers and their property is an obligation under the criminal law as well as a civil responsibility. While the threat of civil proceedings is likely to be adequate in most cases to ensure that hotel proprietors will fulfil their obligations, it is possible to envisage circumstances arising in which, on grounds of public policy, the State would wish to be able to enforce compliance with the obligation. Accordingly, Section 12 of the Bill provides that a hotel proprietor who commits a breach of this obligation will be guilty of an offence and will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100.
The question of the strict liability of hotel keepers in respect of the property of their guests has been under examination by the Council of Europe in recent years and a Convention on the subject aimed at securing uniformity of the law among member countries has been drawn up. The Convention was signed last December on behalf of the Irish Government, and the changes in the law which are provided for under this Bill will enable us to ratify the Convention in due course. There will, I think, be general acceptance of the fact that unification in this particular branch of the law is most desirable from the point of view of the development of international tourism. Because of the great importance of this industry to our economy, we in Ireland cannot afford to lag behind other European countries in this matter.
To sum up, therefore, the Bill is a step in the process of bringing our law up to date so as to make it reflect current outlooks and fulfil the needs of modern society, at the same time enabling us to enter into commitments for the harmonisation of our law with that of other European States. The Bill adopts the basic common law rules relating to innkeepers which have proved beneficial to the community in the past, discards such of the rules as have outlived their usefulness, and resolves certain questions of law which are at present in doubt. Lastly, the Bill collects all the law on the subject into a single document, thereby facilitating the task of making the law known to the people, and indeed, to the legal profession. I believe that these are worthwhile objectives and I feel confident that the measure is one which will commend itself to the House.