Posts Tagged ‘guest safety’

Hotel Law: Model Innkeeper Statute

Friday, July 16th, 2010

As mentioned in a previous blog post, we have proposed a Model Innkeeper Statute. In that blog post, we noted the need for a Model Innkeeper Statute that allows for consistent application and clarity of compliance requirements of an innkeeper’s limitations of liability.

We propose the following Model Innkeeper Statute to begin the dialogue:

(a) Definitions:

  1. “Posting” shall mean: placing/affixing notice included in this statute in fourteen-point type at the place of registration of the inn and inside the entrance door of every guest room.
  2. “Receipt” shall mean, an itemized listing of items deposited with each item’s declared value.
  3. “Valuables” shall mean any money, cameras, computers, other electronic devices, jewelry, jewels, bank notes, bonds, negotiable security, or other valuable documents, and any other items that will fit in the safe provided by the innkeeper.
  4. “Guest” shall mean, a transient guest who registers at an inn or otherwise avails oneself of the facility’s food, beverage, lodging, or other services, including entertainment, baggage handling and storage or for any other purpose of lawfully utilizing the inn’s accommodations, amenities, or services.
  5. “Safe” shall mean a commercially viable lockbox, safe or vault, in good order and fit for safekeeping of Valuables, whether located in the individual rooms of the inn or behind the desk of the inn or at some other location controlled by the inn and its employees.

(b) It shall be the duty of the innkeeper to exercise reasonable care in providing honest employees and to take reasonable precautions to protect the valuables of their guests.

(c) The innkeeper shall be liable for the loss or damage of the valuables of the guest to the extent of its value or the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2500.00), whichever is less, if:

  1. the innkeeper provides a safe, in a convenient place, and fit for the safekeeping of valuables belonging to the guest;
  2. the innkeeper notifies the guest by posting the language at the end of this statute identified as “Notice to Guest” in fourteen-point type and in double space at the place of registration of the inn; and inside the entrance door of every guest room*; and
  3. the guest deposits valuables that can be accommodated in the safe.

(d) The innkeeper shall not be liable for any loss of or damage to the valuables of the guest, if the guest fails to deposit valuables with a value over three hundred dollars ($300.00) in the in-room safe or to the innkeeper for deposit in a safe controlled by the hotel.

(e) The innkeeper shall be liable for a sum not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00) for the loss of all other property, including any wearing apparel, baggage, or other property belonging to a guest when such loss or damage takes place from the room occupied by the guest, and the loss is caused by the negligence, gross negligence, or intentional acts of the innkeeper.

(f) The innkeeper shall be liable for the full value of the loss or damage of any valuables of a guest in the inn, if:

  1. the valuables have been securely deposited in the safe provided by the innkeeper; and
  2. the loss is due to the theft or negligence by the innkeeper or any employees of the innkeeper.

(g) The innkeeper may, by special arrangement in writing with a guest, accept liability for losses in excess of the sum of three hundred dollars ($300.00).

(h) In all cases of loss, the burden shall be on the guest to prove the amount of loss and that any such loss was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the innkeeper.

(i) It is not an affirmative defense of the statute that the guest is a frequent traveler.

* Note to Innkeeper: Actual notice, such as telling the guest about this policy or having the guest sign a separate acknowledgement, is helpful and encouraged. However, it is not a substitute for strict compliance with these statute requirements. The “Notice to Guest” will be in plain language to inform guests of their obligation to protect their property.

 

The model innkeeper statute with analysis is available at www.hospitalitylawyer.com/ModelInnkeeperLiabilityStatute_Final.pdf. For a case history of the innkeeper statute, please click here.

For a brief summary of the proposed model statute, including the major proposed changes, please click here.

Do you agree with the proposed model statute? Comment here.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Hotel Law, Hotel Regulations, Hotel Safety and Security, Social and Economic Issues for Hotels | 12 Comments »

Hotel Lawyer Stephen Barth Suggests Legislative Initiative on Innkeeper Statutes

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

With the pervasiveness of in-room safes, the industry needs to request clarifying language in innkeeper statutes.

Do state statutes requiring safes/safety deposit boxes include in-room safes? The statutory language needs to clarify whether in-room safes are included in the definition of a “safe” or “safety deposit box.”  And if so, are innkeepers still required to have safety deposit boxes at the front desk?

So far, we are aware that Hawaii and Massachusetts have modified their statutes.

Hawaii’s innkeeper statute contains a separate clause limiting liability when  a “security box” is in a guest’s room.  The statute is available at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0486K/HRS_0486K-0004.htm and is excerpted below:

If the keeper of a hotel provides a security box in the room of any guest and prominently posts a notice stating that a security box is provided in which valuables may be deposited and explains the liability for losses therefrom, the keeper of the hotel shall not be liable in any sum for any loss sustained by the guest unless the loss is due to the negligence or fault of the keeper of the hotel.

Similarly, Massachusetts’ statute also contains a separate clause limiting liability when a safe is provided in a guest’s room.  The statute is available at http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-10.htm and is excerpted below:

Whenever an innholder provides a security box in the room of any guest, the innholder shall not be liable for the loss of any items deposited in the security box, by theft or otherwise, in excess of one thousand dollars; provided, however, that the provisions of section thirteen have been complied with.

If your hotel has in-rooms safes, have you continued to maintain safety deposit boxes at the front desk?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Hotel Law, Hotel Safety and Security | No Comments »

Hospitality Lawyer Stephen Barth Recommends Hotel Security Tips after Jakarta Hotel Bombings

Friday, July 17th, 2009

While information is still coming in about the Jakarta hotel bombings, now is a good time to recap hotel security tips, says Hospitality Lawyer Stephen Barth. Jim Stover, Vice President of Hospitality Loss Prevention for Arthur J. Gallagher, suggests that to enhance hotel security, the following changes would probably have to be made:

  • Fence the circumference of the property with an 8- to 10-foot tall fence.
  • Limit vehicle and pedestrian access to only one entrance to the property.
  • Vehicles would have to be valet parked, some distance from the building.
  • Install a state-of-the-art video and electronic surveillance system to monitor the entrance to the property, the perimeter fence, and all public spaces.
  • Install metal detectors and explosive sniffers at the ONLY entrance to the building.
  • Increase the numbers and the training of the security staff. Increase the security officers’ wage to a level where this is a desired position and not a throwaway.
  • Establish strict educational and physical requirements for these positions.
  • Teach hotel staff how to recognize unusual behaviors and how to respond to them appropriately.
  • Control access to guestroom floors by requiring key cards to enter stairwells from public spaces and to operate the elevators.
  • Ensure all hotel employees are well trained in emergency response.

For the full article, titled “Hotel Security: How Much is Too Much?”, please click here. The article appeared in the HospitalityLawyer.com February Risk Management Newsletter.

HospitalityLawyer Stephen Barth also recommends the article “Get Your House in Order for 2009” by Ray Ellis, which provides helpful tips regarding terrorism and hotels. The article appeared in the HospitalityLawyer.com 2008 December Loss Prevention Newsletter.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Hotel Safety and Security | No Comments »

HospitalityLawyer Stephen Barth Challenges the Industry to Go Non-Smoking

Wednesday, December 5th, 2007

In my first blog posting, I am writing to challenge those of you in the hospitality industry that have not already gone smoke-free to join the growing smoke-free trend and prohibit smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants, bars, hotels and casinos, both indoors and outdoors.

Current Legislation Gap

As you are aware, many local communities and states have passed legislation to restrict smoking in the workplace. These ordinances are fairly inclusive in nature but most stop short of being comprehensive. Local and state politics as well as special interests prohibit a total no-smoking ban, particularly in the hospitality arena. Many local ordinances contain a number of exemptions. For example, bars may be exempt or restaurants and bars will have exemptions for outdoor seating areas. Hotels will have exemptions for lobbies, banquet rooms, and a percentage of guest rooms. The main justification for the exemptions is that the local industry will suffer due to the migration of business from smokers to businesses outside the jurisdiction of the ordinance.

Solution and Scope of Benefits

The only solution is a comprehensive ban that equals the playing field and makes the argument moot. I think there is a great deal of support for a comprehensive smoke free initiative from the hospitality industry for the following reasons:

- It dramatically reduces worker health issues.
- It eliminates the business migration concern.
- It greatly reduces maintenance and replacement costs.
- It substantially reduces the risk of a fire due to a lit cigarette.
- Specifically for the lodging industry, it eliminates problems of allocating guest rooms based on smoking and non-smoking.
- Given what science has told us about the dangers of secondhand smoke, it is becoming indefensible for restaurants and bars to have their employees working in smoking environments. It is even more remarkable when we realize that many of these same employees are not provided health insurance.

Indeed, several large lodging chains, such as Marriott and Westin, have already gone smoke-free voluntarily. According to company representatives, the results have been extremely positive.

Other Reasons to Support A Nationwide Ban

Preempting Union Initiatives

Not going smoke-free leaves our industry vulnerable to union initiatives, as the employee health concern is an open invitation for union necessity.

Tourism

The dollar is declining and making the U.S. more attractive to foreign tourists. Demand is high, so now is the time to take the lead (as we did with the airlines and with the ADA) to demonstrate to the world that we not only do things well, but we do the right things.

So let’s not wait for a comprehensive federal ban. Let’s go smoke-free, inside and out because it is the right thing to do for all of our employees, all of our guests, and all of our businesses. Having a smoking section, inside or outside, is like having a

peeing section in a swimming pool.

Smoking is an Assault and Battery on Non-Smokers

Smoking around people that do not smoke while knowing that smoke drifts and will end up on another person or breathed in by another person is an assault and battery. In layman’s terms, it is the equivalent of an unwelcome and offensive touching. Hospitality operators would never tolerate a guest spitting or urinating on another customer and similarly we should never allow a guest to smoke around our customers, inside or outside. Smoke DRIFTS throughout patios, parking garages, sidewalks, from guestroom to guestroom and from smoking floors to non smoking floors.

Contrary to the belief of many in our industry, smokers do not have a right to smoke when that smoke touches another person…period. One person’s civil rights end where another person’s civil rights begin. Simply put, by accommodating and/or promoting smoking on our properties we are aiding and abetting an assault and battery on our customers and our employees.

To see a humorous, unique perspective on the impact of smoking on non-smokers, view this video.

Conclusion

Let’s stop putting short-term shareholder wealth above short- and long-term employee and customer health.

This idea that we allow smoking “to accommodate ALL of our guests” is just a pretext, a disingenuous justification so some can try to squeeze marginal revenue out of their properties at the expense of the health of their non smoking customers and their employees.

Let’s follow the courageous example of Westin and Marriott and the thousands of independent hotel and restaurant operators and be tobacco-free, inside and outside. It is the right thing to do, for all of our customers, our employees, our facilities, and our bottom lines.

Helpful Links:

- Reuters Article: Toxin detected after 1 shift in smoky bar: study

- The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General

- Restaurant Owner, Manager & Employee Quotes In Support Of Smokefree Air by the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights

- Casino Management & Policymakers Support Smokefree Casinos and Smokefree Gaming by the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights

- Casino Employees Support Smokefree Casinos and Smokefree Gaming by the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights

- Economic Impact of Smokefree Ordinances: An Overview by the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights

- Business Costs In Smoke-filled Environments by the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights

- Not Blowing Any Smoke – Bill Marriott’s Blog on the effect of Marriott’s smoke free policy

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Hotel Law, Hotel Regulations, Hotel Safety and Security, Social and Economic Issues for Hotels | 4 Comments »