Liability of the hotelier

Liability of the Hotelier

History

In Roman times, an innkeeper was deemed responsible for any theft committed by his guests on his premises. This effectively meant, according to Justinian's Digest, that if one of your guests robbed another guest then you were liable to pay double damages to your robbed guest! The same applied if one of your manservants, your slave, committed a theft on one of your guests.

This anomalous situation at law has, of course changed.

Is the hotelier responsible for an act of his own staff?

The hotelkeeper remains responsible for the conduct of his employees at work. This section of the law, enacted in our Code of Police laws in the late nineteenth century requires that:

175. Every hotel or lodging-house keeper shall watch over the conduct of every person in his assistance or service, and shall take special care that nothing contrary to the law or morality shall take place on the premises. (Code of Police Laws)

What is the liability of the hotelkeeper?

Generally, the liability of a hotelkeeper is limited to the maximum amount of Lm 75. This is now considered to be a very low sum and has not been reviewed for some years now. The Civil Code reads:

1039 (1) A hotel-keeper shall be liable up to an amount not exceeding seventy-five liri for any damage to or destruction or loss of property brought to the hotel by any guest.

Does this mean that if, for example, a guest's pearl necklace is stolen the hotelkeeper is at maximum liable to the amount of Lm 75?

Not necessarily. A hotelkeeper is required to accept the deposit of property with him. If the guest requested the hotelkeeper to accept the deposit of the necklace and the hotelkeeper refused that request then the hotelkeeper is liable to the full value of the item. Likewise, if the item was left with the hotelkeeper and was damaged or lost then the hotelkeeper is liable to the full amount. The following sub-sections of Section 1039 define this liability clearly:

(2) The liability of the hotelkeeper shall be unlimited -

(a) if the property has been deposited with him; or

(b) if he has refused to receive the deposit of property which he is bound under the provision of the next following subsection to receive or safe custody; or

(c) in any case in which the damage to, or destruction or loss of property has been caused, voluntarily or through negligence or lack of skill, even in a slight degree, by him or by a person in his employment or by any person for whose action he is responsible.

(3) A hotel-keeper shall be bound to receive for safe custody securities, money and valuable articles except dangerous articles and such articles as having regard to the size or standard of the hotel are cumbersome or have an excessive value.

(4) A hotel-keeper shall have the right to require that any articles delivered to him for safe custody shall be in a fastened or a sealed container.

As can be seen in Section 3, both the size and the standard of the hotel must be considered when determining if the hotelier is to accept to take property in his care. In this way, a hotelier running a two-star hotel cannot be expected to accept the deposit of an expensive pearl necklace, whereas a hotelier in a five-star hotel is to accept the deposit of such. The hotelier can require that the property delivered be placed in a sealed container.

The provision of a safety deposit box, or some form of safe, for which the guest is either given a key or exclusive access is an effective means of excluding the hotelier's liability. (See Alfred Schembri in representation of Harry Calleja v Tigne Development Co Ltd pro et noe)

The hotelkeeper is not liable if one of the following situations arises:

(5) The provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply if the guest, after discovering the damage, destruction or loss, does not inform the hotel-keeper without undue delay, or if the damage to, destruction or loss of, property is due -

(a) to a fortuitous event, or to irresistible force; or

(b) to a reason inherent in the nature of the property damaged, destroyed or lost; or

(c) to an act or omission of the guest by whom it was brought into the hotel, or of any person, other than the hotel-keeper, to whom such guest may have entrusted the said property or of any person in the employment of such guest or accompanying him or visiting him.

If therefore an item is stolen in a robbery which could have not been resisted the hotelkeeper is not liable. The same applies in the event of an accidental event which could have been caused by the hotelkeeper. Likewise the hotelkeeper cannot be held responsible for damage or loss caused by a person visiting the guest or any person in the guest's employment.

Can a guest and hotelkeeper enter in an agreement reducing or removing the hotelkeeper's liability?

This situation arises when the hotelkeeper and the guest agree that should the guest's property, when in the former's care, be damaged or lost the hotelkeeper is liable to a sum less than the value of the property. This is normally to the advantage of the hotelkeeper. An agreement made before the property is damaged or lost is generally null:

(6) Any tacit or express agreement between a hotel-keeper and a guest entered into before any damage to, or destruction or loss of property has occurred and purporting to exclude, reduce or make less onerous the hotel-keeper's liability as established in this section shall be null and void.

If, however, the loss or damage of the property is not caused voluntarily or through gross negligence then any agreement stands. This effectively means that if an employee accidentally damages a very fragile item deposited with him the hotelkeeper's liability is limited to an amount of not less than Lm 75 if and only if a prior agreement had been reached. If the item is on the other hand mishandled through gross negligence the liability remains unlimited. The proviso for the above sub-section reads:

Provided that, in the cases referred to in paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (2) of this section where the damage to, or destruction or loss of, property has not been caused by a person mentioned in the said paragraph (c) voluntarily or through gross negligence, any agreement signed at any time by the guest whereby the hotel-keeper's liability is reduced to an amount being not less than seventy-five liri shall be valid.

In any event any theft or crime committed on the premises must be reported to the Police:

174. Every hotel or lodging-house keeper shall forthwith report to the Police any theft or other crime which have taken place on the premises, or the death or lunacy of any lodger. (Code of Police Laws)

What can a hotelkeeper do if a guest refuses to settle a bill for services?

The hotelkeeper can secure payment of bills by retaining property of the guests. The Hotels and Catering Establishments Act reads:

17. A hotel-keeper and a hostel keeper shall have the right to retain any goods which a guest brings into a hotel or hostel and which are in the possession of the hotel-keeper or the hostel keeper until such a guest has paid any rates lawfully charged by the hotel-keeper or hostel keeper as the case may be.