Court Opinion

ID: 9468017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:01:58.183911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:38.166016
License: Public Domain

BLANCHE, Justice
(dissenting).
The hotel posted a notice, as admitted by all parties, which was in compliance with the statute, advising hotel guests that a safe deposit box was available for its guests’ valuables. C.C. art. 2968. As to those deposits in the hotel safe, the innkeeper undoubtedly would be liable as a contractual depositary.
In this writer’s opinion, a fair reading of the statutory scheme compels the following legal conclusions. As to the loss of those items not deposited in the safe, but left in the room where thieves may break in and steal, the statutory liability for such losses is governed by the provisions of C.C. art. 2971, which article limits the innkeeper’s liability to $100. The purpose of such legislation was not to permit one to avoid the consequences of his own negligence, but to recognize the fact that where there was involved a question as to the value of the articles belonging to a guest, that the innkeeper was at the mercy of an unscrupulous guest.
The writer believes that the legislative scheme to limit such liability is also applicable to the innkeeper’s agents and employees, who are also “innkeepers” within the meaning of this statute. In any event, an innkeeper would be hard pressed to act except through its agents and employees. To hold the innkeeper’s employees liable without restriction, and limit the innkeeper to $100, would certainly undermine the legislative policy of C.C. art. 2971.
As far as valuables not kept in the hotel safe are concerned, there is only one innkeeper and that includes the corporate entity and all of its employees and agents.
Clearly, if the Civil Code arts. 2695 through 2971 are construed in pari materia, the opposite result as that found in the majority opinion would obtain.
I respectfully dissent.