Distinction between liability as to thefts and other losses.

- Proper construction of former Civil Code 1910, § 3508 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-21-8) was as follows: when it is shown that property of a guest was stolen while in the custody of an innkeeper, and the guest has complied with all reasonable rules of the inn, the liability of the innkeeper is that of an insurer. In all other cases of loss, the innkeeper may excuse oneself by showing that loss was due to negligence or fault of the guest personally, or occurred after exercise by innkeeper of extraordinary diligence. By former Civil Code 1910, § 3508 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-21-12), it was provided that in the case of loss the presumption is want of extraordinary diligence by the landlord as provided in former Civil Code 1910, § 3508. Austin v. Berlin Supply Co., 12 Ga. App. 798, 78 S.E. 723 (1913).

Construed with former Code 1873, § 2119 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-21-10), former Code 1873, § 2117 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-21-8) required that reasonable rules be posted. Murchison v. Sergent, 69 Ga. 206, 47 Am. R. 754 (1882).

When liability attaches.

- When a hotel keeper sends a porter to the cars to receive the baggage of persons traveling, and baggage is delivered to the porter, and the traveler becomes the guest of the hotel, the liability of the innkeeper as such for the baggage begins on delivery to the porter and continues until redelivery to the actual custody of the guest. Sasseen & Whitaker v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242 (1867); Coskery v. Nagle, 83 Ga. 696, 10 S.E. 491 (1889).

When liability terminates.

- If the porter of the innkeeper takes charge of baggage at the hotel to deliver the baggage at the cars for the guest, the liability of the innkeeper continues until the baggage is delivered. It devolves on the innkeeper to show such facts as will discharge the innkeeper from liability on account of such baggage. Sasseen & Whitaker v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242 (1867).

Inn guest retains guest status when using restaurant facility on premises of hotel structure. Summer v. Hyatt Corp., 153 Ga. App. 684, 266 S.E.2d 333 (1980).

Hotel may open unlocked items to determine owner.

- It is not an unauthorized search for hotel management personnel, including security personnel, to open unlocked items found on their premises in an attempt to determine ownership so that lost or misplaced property can be returned to the proper owner. Berger v. State, 150 Ga. App. 166, 257 S.E.2d 8 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 927, 100 S. Ct. 1312, 63 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1980).

Cited in Traylor v. Hyatt Corp., 122 Ga. App. 633, 178 S.E.2d 289 (1970).

ALR.

- Liability of innkeeper for property left by departing guest who intends to return, 22 A.L.R. 1194.

What information must be given by a guest upon delivering articles into custody of innkeeper, 53 A.L.R. 1048.

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.

Effect of notice limiting liability for valuables or effects of guest in hotel, 9 A.L.R.2d 818.

Liability of hotel, motel, or similar establishment for damage to or loss of guest's automobile left on premises, 52 A.L.R.3d 433.

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.