Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 419.030 (2026)

Lodging establishment not liable for baggage, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

419.030. Lodging establishment not liable for baggage, when. — No lodging establishment in this state shall be liable for the loss of any baggage or other property of a guest, caused by fire not intentionally produced by the lodging establishment or its servants, nor shall he be liable for the loss of any merchandise for sale or sample belonging to a guest, unless the guest shall have given written notice of having such merchandise for sale or sample in his possession after entering the lodging establishment, nor shall the lodging establishment be compelled to receive such guest with merchandise for sale or sample; but lodging establishment shall be liable for the losses of their guests, caused by the theft of such lodging establishment or its servants, anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 9927, A.L. 2002 S.B. 1243)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 13087; 1919 § 5866; 1909 § 6717

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1974–2001 · 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 5× “Innkeeper also claims it has no liability pursuant to section 419.030 RSMo 1994. This section was not asserted in Innkeeper's amended answer and thus cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal.”

Link-Simon, Inc. v. Muehlebach Hotel, Inc., 374 F. Supp. 789 (W.D. Mo. 1974). · cites it 11× “32 worth of diamonds constituted merchandise for sale or sample and that at no time did plaintiff give defendant written notice of having such merchandise in his possession.”

Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 747 P.2d 107 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff contended that Mo. Rev. Stat. § 419.030 (1969) provided no protection for the innkeeper, arguing that the law was directed merely at ending the innkeeper’s common-law liability as insurer of a guest’s property and did not bar actions alleging negligence.”

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.