At common law, an innkeeper was subject to an extraordinary form of responsibility for property brought within the inn by a guest. Under the doctrine traditionally described as infra hospitium, the innkeeper was generally treated as an insurer of the guest’s property and was liable for its loss or theft without proof of negligence. The principal exceptions were losses caused by an act of God, a public enemy, the fault or negligence of the guest, or another irresistible cause for which the innkeeper was not responsible. This unusually demanding rule developed when travel was hazardous, inns were among the few available places of refuge, and travelers ordinarily had little ability to protect their belongings from theft by innkeepers, employees, or other guests. Millhiser v. Beau Site Co., 251 N.Y. 290, 167 N.E. 447 (N.Y. 1929); Paraskevaides v. Four Seasons Washington, 292 F.3d 886 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Mobile Battle House, Inc. v. Wolf, 271 Ala. 632, 126 So.2d 486 (Ala. 1961).
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, legislatures concluded that the common-law insurer rule imposed an unduly harsh burden on hotels in light of modern transportation, improved security, private hotel rooms, safes, vaults, locks, and the increasing ability of guests to protect their own valuables. Nearly every state therefore enacted statutes designed to encourage guests to utilize hotel safes while simultaneously limiting an innkeeper’s virtually absolute common-law liability. Over the years, the common-law rule has been displaced, modified, or substantially limited in nearly every state by statutes addressing an innkeeper’s responsibility for money, jewelry, securities, baggage, wearing apparel, merchandise, and other personal property belonging to guests. These statutes do not follow one uniform model. Instead, they generally fall into three overlapping categories.
Click to Download Chart