Ark. Code Ann. § 20-26-302 (2026)
Liability of proprietor
- No hotel proprietor shall be liable for the loss of or injury to baggage or other articles of property of his or her guest, unless the baggage or other articles of property shall have been actually delivered by the guest to the hotel proprietor or to his or her servants for safekeeping, or unless the loss or injury occurred through the negligence of the hotel proprietor, or by his or her servants or employees in the hotel.
- No innkeeper or hotelkeeper, whether individual, partnership, or corporation, who constantly has in his or her inn or hotel a metal safe or suitable vault in good order, and fit for the custody of money, bank notes, jewelry, articles of gold and silver, precious stones, personal ornaments, railroad mileage books or tickets, negotiable or valuable papers, and bullion, and who keeps on the doors of the sleeping rooms used by guests suitable locks or bolts, and on the transoms and windows of the rooms suitable fastenings, and who keeps a copy of this section printed in distinct type constantly and conspicuously posted in not less than ten (10) conspicuous places in the hotel or inn, shall be liable for the loss or injury suffered by any guest unless the guest has offered to deliver the baggage or other articles of property to the innkeeper or hotelkeeper for custody in the metal safe or vault, and the innkeeper or hotelkeeper has omitted or refused to take it and deposit it in the safe or vault for custody, and to give the guest a receipt therefor.
- The keeper of any inn or hotel shall not be obliged to receive from any one (1) guest for deposit in a safe or vault any property hereinbefore described exceeding a total value of three hundred dollars ($300) and shall not be liable for any excess of the property, whether received or not.
- However, an innkeeper or hotelkeeper may, by special arrangement with a guest, receive for deposit in a safe or vault any property upon such terms as they may agree to in writing. Every innkeeper or hotelkeeper shall be liable for loss of these enumerated articles of a guest in his or her inn or hotel after the articles have been accepted for deposit if the loss was caused by the theft or negligence of the innkeeper, hotelkeeper, or any of their servants.
History. Acts 1913, No. 217, §§ 1, 1a, 2a; C. & M. Dig., §§ 5564-5566; Pope's Dig., §§ 7202-7204; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 71-1107 — 71-1109.
Case Notes
Applicability.
Subsection (b) is not applicable to a bathhouse operated under the same roof but apart from the hotel where the keeper furnished lockers to bathers for their valuables. New York Hotel Co. v. Palmer, 158 Ark. 598, 251 S.W. 34 (1923).
Subsection (b) has no application to the loss of an automobile. Andrews v. Southwestern Hotel Co., 184 Ark. 982, 44 S.W.2d 675 (1931).
Where a guest left a camera with a hotel for safekeeping elsewhere than in his room and received a check therefor, the hotelkeeper's liability to the guest was covered by subsection (a). Hackney v. Southwest Hotels, Inc., 210 Ark. 234, 195 S.W.2d 55 (1946).
The limitation of liability provided for in subsection (b) has no application to cameras. Hackney v. Southwest Hotels, Inc., 210 Ark. 234, 195 S.W.2d 55 (1946).
Checked Property.
As to property falling within subsection (a), the innkeeper is liable as a bailee for hire for the actual value of the checked property. Hackney v. Southwest Hotels, Inc., 210 Ark. 234, 195 S.W.2d 55 (1946).
Liability under subsection (a) is not limited by §§ 20-26-303 and 20-26-304. Hackney v. Southwest Hotels, Inc., 210 Ark. 234, 195 S.W.2d 55 (1946).
Defenses.
Contributory negligence is a defense in an action by guest against hotel for loss of goods which were placed in hotel's care. Miller v. Pine Bluff Hotel Co., 286 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1961).
Duty of Care.
Where a traveler did not become a guest of the hotel, but left his baggage with the hotel porter, hotel was a gratuitous bailee and only bound to the use of slight care in protecting the property and was responsible for its loss only in case of gross neglect. Baker v. Bailey, 103 Ark. 12, 145 S.W. 532 (1912) (decision under prior law).
Hotelkeeper is liable as a depository for hire and held merely to the exercise of ordinary care. Huckins Hotel v. Smith, 151 Ark. 167, 235 S.W. 787 (1921).
Evidence.
Evidence insufficient to require court to give instructions to the effect of special contract between the guest and hotel regarding the care and custody of the property. Miller v. Pine Bluff Hotel Co., 286 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1961).
Evidence sufficient to submit to the jury the question of whether or not the negligence of the guest contributed to the loss of his property. Miller v. Pine Bluff Hotel Co., 286 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1961).
Guests.
Distinction between a boarder and a guest is made by contract; a boarder is one who contracts for board and entertainment for a definite period and for a fixed sum, while one who stays at a hotel for an indefinite period is not a boarder but a guest. Pettit v. Thomas, 103 Ark. 593, 148 S.W. 501 (1912) (decision under prior law).
Innkeeper.
One who received all the transient people he could get, and was ready to entertain such persons whenever they came provided they were proper persons, was an innkeeper. Pettit v. Thomas, 103 Ark. 593, 148 S.W. 501 (1912) (decision under prior law).
Special Arrangements.
Though under subsection (a) hotelkeeper is liable as bailee only so long as party is a guest of the hotel, the parties may enter into a special contract for care of guest's property during his absence. Huckins Hotel v. Smith, 151 Ark. 167, 235 S.W. 787 (1921).
Subsection (d) is limited in its operation to the articles enumerated in subsection (b). Hackney v. Southwest Hotels, Inc., 210 Ark. 234, 195 S.W.2d 55 (1946).
Value Limitation.
The $300 limitation which appears in subsection (c) applies only where the innkeeper has complied with subsection (b). Grimes v. M.H.M., Inc., 299 Ark. 560, 776 S.W.2d 336 (1989).