While staying at Smith Hotel Corp., Nina asked her son to take her two diamond rings to the hotel clerk for safekeeping. The rings were shown to the clerk and then placed in a "safe-deposit envelope" which was sealed. The son received a depositor's check stub, which had a number corresponding to the number on the envelope. The envelope was kept in a safe, located in the hotel's front desk, which was used to keep the hotel's cash as well as the valuables of guests. Though equipped with a combination lock, the safe was usually kept unlocked as there would always be a clerk on duty at the reception desk. The following night, the hotel was robbed by two armed men and Nina's rings were taken. She sued the hotel for the value of the rings. The hotel claimed that the robbery was an "act of a

Question

public enemy" that relieved the hotel of liability. If the safe-deposit envelope is analyzed in the way that safety deposit boxes are, was the hotelkeeper liable for the theft of property left with it for safekeeping?

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Yes, the hotelkeeper is liable for the theft of property left with it for safekeeping. The hotelkeeper is treated by law as the virtual insurer of the guest's property. Here, the safe-deposit envelope was a safeguard against theft. It created an obligation on the hotelkeeper's part to use due care. The hotelkeeper is liable for negligence, if he did not exercise reasonable care, which in turn resulted in the loss or damage of the property. The hotel's failure to lock the safe, at least during the night, is strong evidence for a jury to find the hotel negligent. Hence, the hotelkeeper is obliged to come forward and explain loss or damage to the property entrusted to it.