Case Name: DIPLOMAT RESTAURANT, INC. v. TOWNSEND et al.
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1968-11-21
Citations: 118 Ga. App. 694
Docket Number: 43956
Parties: DIPLOMAT RESTAURANT, INC. v. TOWNSEND et al.
Judges: Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
43956.
DIPLOMAT RESTAURANT, INC. v. TOWNSEND et al.

Opinion:
Bell, Presiding Judge.
Dr. Robert Townsend, Dianne Townsend and Sherry Fitts brought this suit against Diplomat Restaurant, Inc., to recover the value of personal property stolen while plaintiffs were guests in defendant's restaurant. The property was taken from an automobile which one plaintiff had delivered to defendant's employee to be parked in facilities operated by defendant. Defendant contends on appeal that the judgment for each plaintiff was excessive because its liability to each was limited to $100 by Code § 52-111. Held:
Submitted September 6, 1968
Decided November 21, 1968.
Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, Scott Charlton, for appellant.
Bullock, Yancey & Mitchell, Harris Bullock, for appellees.
The pertinent portions of Code § 52-111 (Ga. L. 1922, p. 52) are: "The liability of the innkeeper for loss of or injury to personal property placed by any guest under his care . . . shall not exceed the sum of $100: Provided . . . that the innkeeper shall post a copy of this section printed in distinct type on the inside of the door of the guest's room." We think it is clear from the quoted proviso that the Act of 1922 was intended to apply only to houses of public entertainment furnishing lodging to a guest. See Walpert v. Bohan, 126 Ga. 532, 534 (55 SE 181). Obviously, as defendant merely operated a restaurant and a bar for serving liquors, it could .not introduce evidence of the notice required by Code § 52-111. This Code section was not effective to limit defendant's liability.
Judgment affirmed.
Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.