An expensive Olympus video camera disappeared during the guess stay at the hotel and the Hotel employees never notified the customer of the existence a safe service the firm had available to its clients for an extra monetary charge. When this occurred Peter felt the hotel was responsible for the loss of his property. The latter incident involved Peter purchasing a seafood meal in the Hotel’s restaurant that caused to him to become sick due to food poisoning. The two combined incident made Peter an unsatisfied client that felt abused. Peter needs legal advice on what are his legal options in order to battle against the business that ruined his priceless vacation time.
The Hotel Act 1956 established the parameters that protect the business owner from paying damages to the guess for loss of personal property. The general content of the act is geared towards protecting the business establishment, but it specifies the situations in which the hotel is liable irrelevant of the protection the Act itself provides for companies. The Act states that a hotel or the proprietor of a hotel shall not be liable as an innkeeper to make good to any traveler any loss or damage to personal property the client brought to the premises before or after the person check into the hospitality facilities (Statutelaw, 1991). The circumstances in which the hotel liable for the damage or loss of property of the guess are illustrated in the list below:
When the property was stolen, loss or damage through the neglect, fault of the proprietors or any of his employees
If the property in question was given to a hotel representative for safe custody such as safe deposit box and the item ended up loss or being damage in any way
If at the time of arrival the guess house refused to accept a specific item to be placed in safe custody and the item ended up being stolen or damage during the guess stay in the premises
(Statutelaw, 1991).
A second law provides the guidelines and legal basis in the case of property loss or damage in a case such as the Peter v McGregor is the Occupiers Act of 1957. The focus of this Act was to provide protection to the customer instead of the business owner in transactions involving the rent of a room in a guess house or hotel. The Occupiers Act of 1957 establishes the parameters to determine liability of occupiers and others for injury or damage resulting to a person or goods lawfully on any land or other property from damages dangers due to the state of the property or to things done to it (Statutelaw, 1991). This Act mentions property damage while in the premises of a hotel, but it does not go into any specifics and simply provides a general overview of such a situation without itemizing which situation the guess has the legal right to obtain an economic remuneration for any potential loss of property.
In Donoghue v Stevenson the plaintiff suffered emotional, property and bodily harm due to the product the individual purchased from the company accused of the negligence. In the month of April of 1929 Mrs. Mary M’Alister knows as Donoghue accused David Stevenson, a water manufacturer of negligence due to