O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 43-21-12 (2019)

Loss of or injury to property by innkeeper

✓ 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

In case of loss of property entrusted by a guest to an innkeeper, it will be presumed that the innkeeper failed to exercise extraordinary diligence with regard to such property. Negligence or default by the guest, of which the loss is a consequence, shall be a sufficient defense. The liability of the innkeeper for loss of or injury to personal property placed by any guest under the innkeeper’s care, other than valuable articles which must be delivered to the innkeeper to be deposited in a safe or other place of deposit, shall not exceed the sum of $1,000.00, provided that any guest may, at any time before loss, damage, or destruction of the guest’s property, notify the innkeeper in writing that the property of the guest exceeds in value the sum of $1,000.00 and shall, upon demand of the innkeeper, furnish the innkeeper a list or schedule of the same, with the value thereof, in which case the innkeeper shall be liable for the full value of such property in case of loss, damage, or destruction because of negligence on the innkeeper’s part; provided, further, that the innkeeper shall post a copy of this Code section, printed in distinct type, on the inside of the door of the guest’s room. The innkeeper may adopt reasonable regulations for the innkeeper’s protection, and the publication of such rules to the innkeeper’s guests shall bind them to comply therewith.

History

Orig. Code 1863, § 2099; Code 1868, § 2094; Code 1873, § 2120; Code 1882, § 2120; Civil Code 1895, § 2938; Civil

Code 1910, § 3511; Ga. L. 1922, p. 52, § 2; Code 1933, § 52-111; Ga. L. 1984, p. 924, § 3.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Statute intended to apply only to houses of public entertainment furnishing lodging to a guest. Diplomat Restaurant, Inc. v. Towsend, 118 Ga. App. 694, 165 S.E.2d 317, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1502 (1968). Former Code 1882, § 2120 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-21-12) referred to reasonable regulations other than those connected with the safe and their publication because former Code 1873,

§ 2119 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-21-10) provided how notice to the guest of the safe, or other place of deposit, shall be given. Murchison v. Sergent, 69 Ga. 206, 1882 Ga. LEXIS 198 (1882). Necessity for posting regulations. - Former Code 1882, § 2120 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-21-12) must be construed with former Code 1873, § 2119 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-21-10), and when so construed it was necessary to post regula-

tions for the guest’s protection. Murchison v. Sergent, 69 Ga. 206, 1882 Ga. LEXIS 198 (1882). Innkeeper is liable for losses in absence of regulation and notice. - When an innkeeper fails to adopt reasonable regulations for the innkeeper’s own protection and to provide for due publication of such to guests, a guest who sustains a loss may recover therefor, unless guilty of negligence or default of which the loss is a consequence. Watson v. Loughran, 112 Ga. 837, 38 S.E. 82, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 106 (1901). Diligence required even after discovery of guest’s negligence. - When the guest is guilty of negligence, the innkeeper will nevertheless be liable if after discovery of such negligence the innkeeper and through the innkeeper’s ser-

vants do not exercise extraordinary diligence to prevent loss. Watson v. Loughran, 112 Ga. 837, 38 S.E. 82, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 106 (1901). Contract purporting to further exculpate innkeeper is contrary to public interest and policy and cannot be enforced. Ellerman v. Atlanta Am. Motor Hotel Corp., 126 Ga. App. 194, 191 S.E.2d 295, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1097 (1972). Negligence is question for jury. - Whether given acts or omissions of a guest by whom a loss is sustained do or do not amount to such negligence on the guest’s part as will constitute a sufficient defense to an action against a landlord for value of lost property is generally a question for the jury. Watson v. Loughran, 112 Ga. 837, 38 S.E. 82, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 106 (1901).

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 words descriptive of property in statute

relating to liability of innkeeper to guest loss or damage to property, 115 A.L.R. 1088. Liability of innkeeper for loss or damage to property of a guest resulting from fire, 63 A.L.R.2d 495.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1987–2018 · 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 54× “” OCGA § 43-21-12. The innkeeper statutes also provide, however, that “an innkeeper may relieve himself from responsibility for valuable articles belonging to his guest” under various circumstances.”

Kates v. Brunswick Motel Enter., Inc., 371 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “” 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…”

Wendy Jordan v. Marriott Int'l, Inc a/k/a J.W. Marriott Atlanta Buckhead (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 26× “” OCGA § 43-21-12. The innkeeper statutes also provide, however, that “an innkeeper may relieve himself from responsibility for valuable articles belonging to his guest” under various circumstances.”

Hicks v. Days Inns of Am., Inc., 357 S.E.2d 847 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 12× “The evidence of record is undisputed that appellee had posted, on the inside of the door to appellants’ motel room, a notice which required guests to store their valuables in the motel’s safe and which otherwise limited appel-lee’s liability for the loss of a guest’s property to…”

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.