Court Opinion

ID: 9544864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:02:37.337716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:43.441535
License: Public Domain

OP ALA, Justice,
concurring in result as to Part I and in part of Part II:
My answers to the certified questions are somewhat at variance with those of the court.
QUESTION I
Does innkeeper’s liability extend to a guest’s vehicle and its contents when the vehicle is parked “in an outside, unenclosed, patrolled (at night) parking lot, provided for the use of the motel’s guests.. . ”?
A means of conveyance is deemed to be infra hospitium and hence “under the care of” the innkeeper within the meaning of our statutory law1 when it is left by the guest at the usual place provided for its accommodation,2 and the innkeeper is answerable for its loss — qua innkeeper — absent actual delivery.3 This rule applies here. The parking lot was doubtless provided by the motel for the vehicles of the guests. It was the “usual place” for their accommodation. When parked in the lot, the guest’s vehicle stood placed in the “constructive custody” of the inn. The law requires no more than that to fasten upon the innkeeper his extraordinary liability for loss.4
QUESTION II
When the innkeeper has complied with the terms of 15 O.S.1981 § 503a, do the recovery limits in 15 O.S.1981 § 503b apply to a vehicle (and its contents) stolen while infra hospitium?
Oklahoma law does not limit the range of the guest’s personal property that falls within the extraordinary liability of the innkeeper. By the terms of 15 O.S.1981 § 501 the common-law rule, which once confined the innkeeper’s responsibility to such goods and animals [bona et catalla transeuntis] as the guest ordinarily carries with him for the purposes of his journey— causa hospitandi — stands abrogated.5 Nor do the provisions of 15 O.S.1981 §§ 503a and b impose any restriction on the charac*764ter of property for the loss of which the innkeeper is legally answerable. They merely condition and limit the amount of recovery for the loss of certain enumerated goods. Vehicles — which are neither listed nor otherwise referred to among the items of property subject to the § 503b recovery limits — are clearly dehors the purview of that section. The rule of expressio unius est exdusio alterius applies here to place vehicles outside the monetary recovery limits of § 503b. All other goods which are comprised within the categories of property described in § 503b stand subject to innkeeper’s liability limitations imposed by that section.
In the assessment of innkeeper’s liability for the automobile’s contents careful consideration must be given to the various statutorily-created categories of personal property:
(1)(a) money, railroad tickets, bank notes, bonds and negotiable securities;
(b) “other valuable papers”;
(c) jewels, ornaments and precious stones;
(d) articles of gold or silver manufacture; and
(e) “other valuable property of small compass”.
For the loss from car theft of an article described in Category 1, above, the innkeeper clearly is not liable. All such property is required to be deposited in the inn’s safe. 15 O.S.1981 § 503a.
(2) If a dispute should arise as to whether some article does fall within the items described in Category 1, above, it must be treated as an issue of fact.6
(3) The innkeeper is statutorily absolved of liability for any “merchandise samples or merchandise for sale” unless he had prior notice of their presence within the inn and acknowledged it in writing. 15 O.S.1981 § 503b.
(4) Absent a written contract for greater liability, when the innkeeper has acknowledged in writing that he had pri- or notice of the presence of “merchandise” (as described in Category 3) within the inn, monetary recovery for such merchandise is limited to $100.00 “for each trunk and its contents”, $75.00 “for each valise and its contents”, and $25.00 “for each package, box or bundle”. 15 O.S. 1981 § 503b.
(5) Absent a written contract for greater liability, monetary recovery for “all other miscellaneous effects [other than “merchandise samples or merchandise for sale”] and property including wearing apparel” is limited to $50.00. 15 O.S.1981 § 503b.
(6) Absent a written contract for greater liability, total monetary recovery for all property described in the above categories, which was lost by the guest before his departure from the inn, cannot exceed $250.00.
(7) For the loss of articles which may be deemed to fall dehors those described as (a) “merchandise samples or merchandise for sale”; or (b) “all other miscellaneous effects and property including wearing apparel”; or as (c) “valuables” within the purview of Category 1, above, the innkeeper is liable — as for the stolen automobile — to the extent of the item’s fair market value.
I would hence answer Question II by pointing out that in assessing the motel’s liability for the contents of the automobile due consideration must be given to the separate categories created by §§ 503a and b.
I am authorized to state that Doolin, J., concurs in my views.

. Innkeeper’s liability is statutorily defined by 15 O.S.1981 § 501. Our statute varies but slightly from the common-law norm. Buck v. Del City Apartments, Inc., Okl., 431 P.2d 360, 364 [1967]. Oklahoma does retain the common-law requirement that the property of the guest be "infra hospitium". The accepted English counterpart of “infra hospitium" is “placed in the care of the innkeeper”. That is the very phrase used in our § 501. The phrase is synonymous and legally co-extensive with the common-law term “infra hospitium". Abercrombie v. Edwards, 62 Okl. 54, 161 P. 1084, 1086 [1916],

. Clute v. Wiggins, 14 Johns. (N.Y.) 175, 7 Am.Dec. 448 [1817]; Abercrombie v. Edwards, supra note 1, 161 P. at 1086. The limits of the common-law hospitium, or inn, have not been defined with precision and must depend somewhat on the particular circumstances of each case. Albin v. Presby, 8 N.H. 408, 410, 29 Am.Dec. 679 [1830],

. Abercrombie v. Edwards, supra note 1, 161 P. at 1086; Park-O-Teil Co. v. Roskamp, 203 Okl. 493, 223 P.2d 375, 378 [1950]; Ridgely Operating Co. v. White, 227 Ala. 459, 150 So. 693 [1933]; McDonald v. Edgerton, 5 Barb. (N.Y.) 560 [1849],

. Merchants Fire Assur. Corp., Etc. v. Zion’s Sec. Corp., Utah, 163 P.2d 319, 320 [1945].

. The causa hospitandi limitation on the extraordinary liability of the innkeeper is inapplicable in Oklahoma. Abercrombie v. Edwards, supra note 1, 161 P. at 1085. Busby Hotel & Theatre Co. v. Thom, 125 Okl. 239, 257 P. 314, 316 [1927]. For a discussion of the causa hos-pitandi rule, see Neal v. Wilcox, 49 N.C. (4 Jones L.) 146, 67 Am.Dec. 266 [1856].

. Ketchum v. Gordon, 151 Okl. 240, 298 P. 605, 606 [1931],