O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 43-21-11 (2019)

Limitation on liability of innkeeper when valuables deposited with him

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No hotel, apartment hotel, or innkeeper shall be responsible in an amount in excess of $1,000.00 for the loss or theft of any valuables, including cash, jewelry, etc., which are contained in a package, box, bag, or other container left with the hotel proprietor or innkeeper to be placed in the safe or other depository of the hotel or inn, provided that the liability of the hotel or innkeeper may be increased to an amount in excess of $1,000.00 by a written contract entered into between the parties providing a greater liability; provided, further, that the contract shall not call for any additional cost to the guest. (b) A notice containing the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be posted in a conspicuous place in all rooms of the hotel occupied by guests.

History

Ga. L. 1943, p. 313, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 924, § 2.

Annotations

Cross references. Liability of depositories for hire generally, § 44-12-92.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Statute spells out limitations on liability of hotel keepers whose guests place themselves within terms of these statutory provisions (see now O.C.G.A.

Ch. 21, T. 43). Koch v. Block Corp., 423 F.2d 700, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10980 (5th Cir. 1970).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Liability of hotel company for loss of or damage to guest’s baggage while being

transported to or from hotel, 76 A.L.R. 1106. Construction, scope, and application of

HOTEL, INN, & ROADHOUSE OPERATORS

words descriptive of property in statute relating to liability of innkeeper to guest loss or damage to property, 115 A.L.R. 1088. Effect of notice limiting liability for valuables or effects of guest in hotel, 9 A.L.R.2d 818. Statutory limitations upon innkeeper’s

liability as applicable where guests’ property is lost or damaged through innkeeper’s negligence, 37 A.L.R.3d 1276. Construction and application of terms “jewelry” and “personal ornaments” as used in statute limiting innkeeper’s liability for loss or damage to guest’s property, 88 A.L.R.3d 979.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1988–2018 · leading case: JORDAN v. MARRIOTT Int'l, INC. Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Jordan., 816 S.E.2d 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

JORDAN v. MARRIOTT Int'l, INC. Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Jordan., 816 S.E.2d 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 38× “, which are contained in a package, box, bag, or other container left with the hotel proprietor or innkeeper to be placed in the safe or other depository of the hotel or inn” without a “written contract” for a greater liability, see OCGA § 43-21-11 (a); and (3) other than for…”

Kates v. Brunswick Motel Enter., Inc., 371 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “” We find OCGA § 43-21-10 to be the statute which governs the instant case and do not agree with appellants’ argument that appellee was required to have complied with OCGA §§ 43-21-11 and 43-21-12 in addition to OCGA § 43-21-10 in order to be relieved of liability in this…”

Whipper v. Mclendon Movers, Inc., 372 S.E.2d 820 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Phillip Bond, Paul E. Kauffmann, Phyllis J. Holmen, John L.”

Wendy Jordan v. Marriott Int'l, Inc a/k/a J.W. Marriott Atlanta Buckhead (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 16× “, which are contained in a package, box, bag, or other container left with the hotel proprietor or innkeeper to be placed in the safe or other depository of the hotel or inn” without a “written contract” for a greater liability, see OCGA § 43-21-11 (a); and (3) other than for…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.