Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 419
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 419.010 (2026)

Lodging establishment liable, when

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  419.010.  Lodging establishment liable, when — defined. — 1.  As used in this chapter, the term "lodging establishment" shall be any building, group of buildings, structure, facility, place, or places of business where five or more guest rooms are provided, which is owned, maintained, or operated by any person and which is kept, used, maintained, advertised or held out to the public for hire which can be construed to be a hotel, motel, motor hotel, apartment hotel, tourist court, resort, cabins, tourist home, bunkhouse, dormitory, or other similar place by whatever name called, and includes all such accommodations operated for hire as lodging establishments for either transient guests, permanent guests, or for both transient and permanent guests.

  2.  No lodging establishment in this state is liable for the loss of any money, jewelry, wearing apparel, baggage or other property of a guest in a total sum greater than two hundred dollars, unless the lodging establishment by an agreement in writing individually, or by the authorized agent or clerk in charge of the office of the lodging establishment, voluntarily assumes a greater liability with reference to such property.  As regards money, jewelry or baggage, a lodging establishment is not liable in any event for the loss thereof or damage thereto, unless the same was actually delivered by the guest to him or his authorized agent, or clerk, in the office of the lodging establishment, and the receipt thereof acknowledged by the delivery to the guest of a claim check of the lodging establishment, unless the loss or damage occurs through the willful negligence or wrongdoing of the lodging establishment, his servants or employees.  This section shall be posted in a conspicuous manner at the guest registration desk and in every guest room thereof, and unless so posted the same does not apply in the case of a lodging establishment failing to post same.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 9928, A.L. 1955 p. 852, A.L. 2002 S.B. 1243)

Prior revision: 1929 § 13088

(1965) This section being in derogation of the common law is to be strictly construed, and a guest's automobile is not included in the words "or other property of a guest" in section limiting innkeeper's liability so that statute had no application.  Phoenix Assur. Co. of New York v. Royale Investment Co. (A.), 393 S.W.2d 43.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1955–2001 · leading case: Stormer v. Richfield Hosp. Servs., Inc., 60 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stormer v. Richfield Hosp. Servs., Inc., 60 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “020 RSMo 1994 1 ; and (2) that Guest had no written agreement with Innkeeper to assume liability greater than $200, thus limiting Innkeeper’s liability to $200 pursuant to section 419.010. The trial court granted leave to so amend the Answer, apparently without objection from…”
Cantrell v. Superior Loan Corp., 603 S.W.2d 627 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Respondent Black also argues that appellant’s evidence of his conversation with the deceased Judge Black is inadmissible because of the Dead Man’s Statute, § 419.010, RSMo 1978. The facts will be stated in the light most favorable to the appellant in determining whether a…”
Link-Simon, Inc. v. Muehlebach Hotel, Inc., 374 F. Supp. 789 (W.D. Mo. 1974). · cites it 6× “§ 419.010 did not apply to an automobile.”
Rosenfeld v. Cont'l Bldg. Operating Co., 135 F. Supp. 465 (W.D. Mo. 1955). “Rosenfeld, that were stolen from Rosenfeld’s room in defendant’s hotel in Kansas City on September 22, 1949, because of the claimed failure of defendant to maintain an iron safe in its hotel for the receipt and safekeeping of such diamonds, as contemplated by Sections 419.010,…”
DeMott v. Dillingham, 512 S.W.2d 918 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). “The plaintiff contends, however, that a litigant who takes the deposition of his adversary gains the same advantage of discovery whether taken before or after the death of the other party to the transaction, so the same rule of waiver of the disqualification of § 419.”
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.