LEGAL DUTIES OF INNKEEPERS UNDER THE COMMON LAW

INNKEEPERS ACT 1952 • This is an Act to provide for the relief of innkeepers.

• Applies to Peninsular Malaysia only.

• Some terms to take note….

– “goods” means any movable property – “innkeeper” means the keeper of any such inn and includes a company or corporation; – “manager” means the agent or servant of the innkeeper for the time being in charge of the inn or any person duly appointed by the innkeeper to receive the goods of his guests for safe custody;

INKEEPERS ACT 1952 - “inn� means any hotel, boarding-house or other place where any person is harboured or lodged for any kind whatsoever of hire or reward and where any domestic service whatsoever is rendered by the owner, lessee, principal tenant, occupier or manager to the person so harboured or lodged, licensed under any written law for the time being in force in Peninsular Malaysia;

Section 3 : Power of sale of goods deposited with innkeeper • An innkeeper has the right to sell goods deposited to him by the guests if they do not pay for the lodging if:a) 6 weeks have lapsed b) the proceeds of the sale are to be used to pay off the guests’ debts c) the proceeds received are not more than the amount of debts owed by the guests d) a notice for such sale has been put up one month earlier in Malaysian newspapers

Section 4: Limitation of innkeepers’ liability • An innkeeper will not be liable to pay for more than RM500 for any loss or injury to the property brought by the guests except: a) If the loss and injury are caused by the negligence or default of the innkeeper or his servants b) where such goods shall have been deposited expressly for safe custody with such innkeeper or his manager

Section 4 continues…

• Where the goods are deposited for security by guests, innkeepers are allowed to: i. request guests to declare the value of goods deposited to them ii. that such goods shall be deposited in a box or other receptacle, fastened and sealed by the person depositing the same • But… If the value of goods exceed RM5000, the innkeeper may refuse to deposit such goods and hence, shall not be liable for the loss of such goods.

Check it out….

Liability exceeding RM500 • Innkeeper is negligent.

• Innkeeper deliberately cause the loss or damage.

• Goods lost or damage bcoz of theft caused by innkeeper or employee.

• Goods deposited for security at the inn.

EXAMPLE • Tudia checks in at Tukita Hotel. She brought her RM4000 GoPrak camera with her. She enters her room and goes out for a meal. When she comes back her GoPrak is lost.

Whether or not Tukita Hotel is liable for the lost depends on several matters: 1. If the camera is in her luggage in her room, Tukita Hotel is liable to pay Tudia RM500 or less.

2. If Tudia places her camera on the bed or forgets to lock her door, Tukita Hotel is not liable because Tudia herself is negligent.

3. If Tudia deposits the camera for security with Tukita Hotel and declares its value, Tukita Hotel must pay for Tudia’s loss but not more than the declared value.

4. If Tukita Hotel refuses to accept Tudia’s request to deposit the camera?

Section 5 • Refusal to accept property for safe custody If any innkeeper or his manager shall refuse to receive for safe custody, as before mentioned, any goods of his guest the declared value of which does not exceed five thousand ringgit, or if any such guest shall, through any default of such innkeeper or manager, be unable to deposit such goods as aforesaid, such innkeeper shall not be entitled to the benefit of this Act in respect of such goods. • So, Tukita Hotel can be claimed because it will not have the benefit of the limitation of the Act in section 4.

Section 6 • Copy of section 4 to be exhibited Every innkeeper shall cause at least one copy of section 4 of this Act printed in plain type to be exhibited in a conspicuous part of the hall or entrance to his inn, and he shall be entitled to the benefit of this Act in respect of such goods only as shall be brought to his inn while such copy shall be so exhibited.

Cashill v Wright (1856) The guest placed his watch and money on the table in the hotel and left the door open all night.

When the things were lost, the court decided that the guest himself was negligent.