Electronic Device Stolen From My Room

My question involves a consumer law issue in the State of: CALIFORNIA

Hello, there. Last January I had a US$800 eletronic device stolen from inside my locker which was in my room at a Hostel in Los Angeles. (there was something like other 8 people living in that same room)

And I would like to know what can I do to make they pay for the stolen device since I think they are responsable for the security of the hostel (I am right?)

Since I live OUTSIDE United States, is there anything that I can do to keep going with this case? I PAY 50% OF THE PRICE OF THE DEVICE FOR ANYONE WHO COULD HELP ME TO FORCE THEM (THE HOSTEL) TO PAY ME BACK THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT I SPENT WITH MY DEVICE (THAT'S NOT A JOKE!)

for the hostel to be liable, you will have to prove some duty they had to secure your items and then how their negligence allowed it to be stolen.

so, was your locker locked? Your lock? anybody else have access to your locker? Was the lock damaged? door to the locker damaged?

what did the management say to the issue? are there any video cameras that might have recorded any action at your locker?

Hi, jk. Thank's for your attention! There was other 8 people staying in the same room (I was in a Hostel, not in a regular Hotel) and the locker was locked by my own padlock. Door of the room and my lockpad looking normal (not damaged at all!). There was no security cams nor security guys during the day (my device was stolen at about 2PM when I went to a movie theater). I have a police report about this case.

The owner of the place DIDNT DO NOTHING. Nothing at all. He only said "We are not responsable for stolen stuff from inside the rooms".

Is there anything that I could make to make them pay?!

Did anybody else have the combination or key to the lock??

It is most unlikely the hostel is liable for your loss. For them to be liable, you would have to show they were negligent in some way that caused your loss. So far, you have shown nothing that would indicate there was any negligence on their part. They do not have to guard your property.

Nobody had the key of my lockpad. I think they are liable since they are responsable for the security of the place (security cams, for example). Plus, a device from another guy was stolen inside the same room before I arrived and they did not tell me that. Plus, I´m not sure, but shouldn´t they have insurance for cases like that?

What you think, jk?

Quote:

---

Quoting bipenett

---

Nobody had the key of my lockpad. I think they are liable since they are responsable for the security of the place (security cams, for example). Plus, a device from another guy was stolen inside the same room before I arrived and they did not tell me that. Plus, I´m not sure, but shouldn´t they have insurance for cases like that?

What you think, jk?

---

Quote:

---

I think they are liable since they are responsable for the security of the place

---

I already told you; they do not have a duty to protect your property simply because the own the property. Then, even if they had such a duty, you would have to prove they breached that duty. You have neither and as such, your loss is not their problem.


and to insurance; why didn't you have insurance on your expensive property?

Yeah. I didnt know my credit card insurance doesnt cover stolen objects from some cities (inclunding Los Angeles).

I would like to discuss about this because I think hostels and hotels ARE responsable for the security of the objtecs left inside the rooms (in the same way that parking companies are responsable for stolen cars or stolen objects inside cars parked in their properties). Are you sure they are not really liable? I would like to try a lawyer to help me with that situation. What you think, buddy?

Quote:

---

bipenett;519117]Yeah. I didnt know my credit card insurance doesnt cover stolen objects from some cities (inclunding Los Angeles).

---

I had no idea of that myself. Sounds like a sneaky thing to do.

Quote:

---

I would like to discuss about this because I think hostels and hotels ARE responsable for the security of the objtecs left inside the rooms (in the same way that parking companies are responsable for stolen cars or stolen objects inside cars parked in their properties). Are you sure they are not really liable? I would like to try a lawyer to help me with that situation. What you think, buddy?

---

well, you are right that they have the same liability as a parking garage would have regarding property stolen from your vehicle; generally: none. As to the vehicle being stolen; again, generally; none. Generally, as long as they took reasonable means to secure your car, they would not be liable for the items in your car or your car itself if it was stolen.

If you want to hire a lawyer, there are links here in this site or grab a phone book and make a few calls. If you find any that tell you any differently than I have told you, I would be very surprised.

You are wrong if you think they are liable. Did they advertise that property was secure? Did they promise nothing would be taken? They need only provide reasonable accommodations, not absolutely secure ones.

You are free to file a small claims suit against the hostel if you wish, but I do not see they have any responsibility for the theft. But, you will have to travel to the local court in the jurisdiction where this happened at least twice - maybe more often.

What is the value of this device?

I think people assume that there is hostels and hotels liability since guests look for a place not only for sleep securely but a place to leave their stuff securely too (otherwise it would be pretty easy for hostels and hotels to actualy steal stuff from their guests without the risk of getting responsable for the steal, right?)

The price of the device was something between 800 - 850 dolars.

The person responsible for theft is the thief. The owner of a property or building is not required to provide absolute security as it would be cost prohibitive.

You say you had your own lock on the locker and still stuff was taken? How is that the responsibility of the hostel? In your opinion, what precautions would have been sufficient to protect them from liability? Would you rather they have surveillance cameras in all areas of the hostel? Would you feel protected knowing that your every action was being observed and recorded even, perhaps, dressing?

Generally speaking, hostels with shared rooms warn you explicitly not to leave valuables unattended in your room. Theft from hostels is a problem going back to the first hostel.

If you have evidence that a hostel employee stole the item, then the employee is liable and the hostel could be liable depending upon additional facts. If not, your hypothetical has no relevance to the situation under discussion.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The person responsible for theft is the thief. The owner of a property or building is not required to provide absolute security as it would be cost prohibitive.

You say you had your own lock on the locker and still stuff was taken? How is that the responsibility of the hostel? In your opinion, what precautions would have been sufficient to protect them from liability? Would you rather they have surveillance cameras in all areas of the hostel? Would you feel protected knowing that your every action was being observed and recorded even, perhaps, dressing?

---

Well... I think they should be responsable for registrating at least every person who comes in or go out. And that´s a kind of registitation that they don´t make (they dont have minimal security items, not at all, such as cameras, a "doorkeeper", magnet cards for guests, door locked from street or stuff like that. None of these they have.). They actually make the duty of stealing stuff a easy job for theaves. That´s why I think they should be liable. What you think?

Quote:

---

Quoting bipenett

---

Well... I think they should be responsable for registrating at least every person who comes in or go out. And that´s a kind of registitation that they don´t make (they dont have minimal security items, not at all, such as cameras, a "doorkeeper", magnet cards for guests, door locked from street or stuff like that. None of these they have.). They actually make the duty of stealing stuff a easy job for theaves. That´s why I think they should be liable. What you think?

---

I think that if you want security you should go to a hotel. At least then the access to your room would be limited, and some hotels have safes in the room for valuables.

Even if they registered all the guests, how would that have helped? Having a name of every guest would not prove who stole your item.

And the processes you describe would make the hostel into a hotel - and, more expensive. People use hostels because they are cheap, convenient, and because they like the social atmosphere. It sounds like you may prefer a hotel in the future.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Generally speaking, hostels with shared rooms warn you explicitly not to leave valuables unattended in your room. Theft from hostels is a problem going back to the first hostel.

If you have evidence that a hostel employee stole the item, then the employee is liable and the hostel could be liable depending upon additional facts. If not, your hypothetical has no relevance to the situation under discussion.

---

I don´t have the evidence that it was a hostel employee. But I can prove that they dont have minimal security conditions (conditions that you would expect from any hostel in the world like a door locked from the room, for example. They have a gate which stay 100% opened all day long - they only close it at night).

Quote:

---

Quoting bipenett

---

I don´t have the evidence that it was a hostel employee. But I can prove that they dont have minimal security conditions (conditions that you would expect from any hostel in the world like a door locked from the room, for example. They have a gate which stay 100% opened all day long - they only close it at night).

---

I mean FROM THE STREET (not from the room)... Sorry

They gave you a locker. Beyond that, you have eyes so you knew what the situation was within the multi-person room in which you were staying.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I think that if you want security you should go to a hotel. At least then the access to your room would be limited, and some hotels have safes in the room for valuables.

Even if they registered all the guests, how would that have helped? Having a name of every guest would not prove who stole your item.

And the processes you describe would make the hostel into a hotel - and, more expensive. People use hostels because they are cheap, convenient, and because they like the social atmosphere. It sounds like you may prefer a hotel in the future.

---

In America cheap sutff is a not synonym of bad or insecure stuff. Hostel is a different way of guesting where you sleep in the same room with other people, but this also is not synonym of leak of security at all.

I would like to know if is it possible to have someone representing me on the court for a small claim case. I really would like to try this, because I really don´t see why hostels and hotels are not responsable for the security of their own properties.

Quote:

---

Small claims court is a special court where disputes are resolved quickly and inexpensively. In small claims court, the rules are simplified and the hearing is informal. Attorneys are generally not allowed.

---

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/s...sic_info.shtml

You just are never going to get it apparently. Unless there was a legal duty to secure your items and they breached that duty, they are not liable for your loss. The did not have a duty to secure your property and as such, they cannot be held liable for your loss. You can opine all you want and wish and pray it was different but it isn't.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

They gave you a locker. Beyond that, you have eyes so you knew what the situation was within the multi-person room in which you were staying.

---

I think a locker is not enought for a place with other thefts in it´s history.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/s...sic_info.shtml

You just are never going to get it apparently. Unless there was a legal duty to secure your items and they breached that duty, they are not liable for your loss. The did not have a duty to secure your property and as such, they cannot be held liable for your loss. You can opine all you want and wish and pray it was different but it isn't.

---

Just making a correction, they are not liable for my loss, but they are responsable for the security of their place as they know that they keep other people´s stuff.

Do you think it is possible to someone represent me on a small claim (since I don´t live in US)?

Quote:

---

bipenett;520632]I think a locker is not enought for a place with other thefts in it´s history

---

.well, you have a problem because what you think does not have any bearing on this. It's what the law reqiuires that makes a difference.

Quote:

---

Just making a correction, they are not liable for my loss, but they are responsable for the security of their place as they know that they keep other people´s stuff.

---

if they are not liable for your loss then there is nothing to sue them for. Only if they are liable for the loss would you be awarded any money. I'm glad you have realized they are not liable for your loss.

Quote:

---

Do you think it is possible to someone represent me on a small claim (since I don´t live in US)?

---

California allows representation by special permission only. You can address the court concerning the matter. That is the only place you can get an actual answer.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

.well, you have a problem because what you think does not have any bearing on this. It's what the law reqiuires that makes a difference.




if they are not liable for your loss then there is nothing to sue them for. Only if they are liable for the loss would you be awarded any money. I'm glad you have realized they are not liable for your loss.

California allows representation by special permission only. You can address the court concerning the matter. That is the only place you can get an actual answer.

---

We can not forget that there is a legal situation in american law called neglicence (and security neglicence, which means that if you are aware of security problems and do nothing it is security negligence.) According with Wikipedia, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability.

According with a lawyer website about California statute: "IV. HOTEL LIABILITY FOR LOSS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY. At common law, an innkeeper was an insurer of the property of its guests, and
hence liable for all injury or loss, unless the cause was an act of God, public enemy, or negligence of the guest. That common rule law was changed by statutes enacted in
1895. California Civil Code §1859 provides that the liability of a hotel for personal property is limited to $250 for a traveling back, $500 per trunk, $250 for all other
personal property, and $1,000 in the aggregate. Under Civil Code §1860, the hotel’s liability is limited to $500 in the aggregate for "articles of unusual value", including
money, jewelry, documents, and furs. These statutory limits can be increased pursuant to an agreement between the hotel and guest. However, any such agreement must be in writing." (www dot chytenlaw dot com)

Acording with the "Hotel Liability" text from Notes.com: "Hotels have a general duty to exercise "reasonable care" for the safety and security of their guests." - "Hotels may be "vicariously liable" for the NEGLIGENCE of their employees." - "Hotels are generally not liable for valuables that are not secured in the hotel safe, if conspicuous notice is posted."

Do you really think there is no hostel liablity in this case?

Quote:

---

1859. The liability of an innkeeper, hotelkeeper, operator of a
licensed hospital, rest home or sanitarium, furnished apartment house
keeper, furnished bungalow court keeper, boardinghouse or
lodginghouse keeper, for losses of or injuries to personal property,
is that of a depositary for hire

---

now go find out what the duty a depository for hire has to a person in California

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

now go find out what the duty a depository for hire has to a person in California

---

In cases of depository for hire there is no duty for people, of course. But Im not talking about injures, im talking about personal objects losses. I think your text demonstrates exactly what I am saying.

Quote:

---

Quoting bipenett

---

In cases of depository for hire there is no duty for people, of course. But Im not talking about injures, im talking about personal objects losses. I think your text demonstrates exactly what I am saying.

---

incorrect. the proprietor does not have a duty to your property. They can only have a duty to the owner of the property. So, find out what the duty a proprietor has to a guest concerning their property. There are various levels of duty a person can have to another party. It is based on the relationship between those 2 parties that determines the level. So, figure out what level of duty a proprietor owes a guest concerning the guests property.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

incorrect. the proprietor does not have a duty to your property. They can only have a duty to the owner of the property. So, find out what the duty a proprietor has to a guest concerning their property. There are various levels of duty a person can have to another party. It is based on the relationship between those 2 parties that determines the level. So, figure out what level of duty a proprietor owes a guest concerning the guests property.

---

I tried to find out exactly what lesgislation in California says about liability of depository for hire, but I couldnt. But in the first sentenced you said "the propiertor doesnt have duty to your property" and in the second sentence you said "the proprietor can only have a duty to your property"... which one did you want to say correctly?

Anyway you are trying to say that both lawyer's website and Notes.com are incorrect?

Quote:

---

Quoting bipenett

---

IBut in the first sentenced you said "the propiertor doesnt have duty to your property" and in the second sentence you said "the proprietor can only have a duty to your property"... which one did you want to say correctly?
?

---

no, I didn't

Quote:

---

e proprietor does not have a duty to your property.

---

.

Quote:

---

They can only have a duty to the owner of the property

---

in attempting to repeat the second sentence, you left out the words; the owner of the, and substituted ; your

Quote:

---

Anyway you are trying to say that both lawyer's website and Notes.com are incorrect?

---

not at all. I quoted the pertinent law. If you will figure out what level of duty a proprietor owes the patrons, we can move forward.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

no, I didn't



.


in attempting to repeat the second sentence, you left out the words; the owner of the, and substituted ; your


not at all. I quoted the pertinent law. If you will figure out what level of duty a proprietor owes the patrons, we can move forward.

---

I think regular people use to believe that there is not different degrees of hosting. I mean.. there is only 1 way to be a guest of an inkeeper: you pay the innkeeper so he let you stay inside and use his property for accomodation (including a place to leave your luggage as well)

If the innkeeper allow you to stay in his property with your own stuff, we have to understand that since the place is not yours, you can not be responsable for the security of it (since you are paying for certain security, as well). Right?

Question: You mentioned that you had a locker with your own lock on it. If so, how was entry made into the locker so that the property was stolen?

From a read of California's Civil Code section 1859 it appears that if you have a valid claim, the max. you could receive would appear to be $250. But, if you had placed your belonging in a locker and it was broken in to then there may be no liability on the part of the innkeeper.

Quote:

---

=bipenett;521010]I think regular people use to believe that there is not different degrees of hosting. I mean.. there is only 1 way to be a guest of an inkeeper: you pay the innkeeper so he let you stay inside and use his property for accomodation (including a place to leave your luggage as well)

---

and this is applicable to your situation why?

Quote:

---

If the innkeeper allow you to stay in his property with your own stuff, we have to understand that since the place is not yours, you can not be responsable for the security of it (since you are paying for certain security, as well). Right?[

---

Not true at all. You are responsible for your own property. Suggesting anything to the contrary would mean you could simply drop your stuff in the middle of the lobby and if anything happened to it, it would be the proprietors liability. That is simply not true. If you choose to stay at a place you know there is no security, you are responsible for not taking action to secure your property. While it sounds like you were not negligent in attempting to secure your property, you have shown nothing that would suggest the proprietor was negligent in any way either. Due to that, the person responsible for your loss is the person that stole it. Find him and get your money back from him because that is the only person that owes you anything.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and this is applicable to your situation why?

Not true at all. You are responsible for your own property. Suggesting anything to the contrary would mean you could simply drop your stuff in the middle of the lobby and if anything happened to it, it would be the proprietors liability. That is simply not true. If you choose to stay at a place you know there is no security, you are responsible for not taking action to secure your property. While it sounds like you were not negligent in attempting to secure your property, you have shown nothing that would suggest the proprietor was negligent in any way either. Due to that, the person responsible for your loss is the person that stole it. Find him and get your money back from him because that is the only person that owes you anything.

---

We have to remember that there is not the same liability in cases of theft as result of security neglince and thefts caused in sceneries with reasonable security, since neglicene must to have a responsable to exist (other way, it wouldnt be negligence). Negligence in my is provable, since it is not merely an idea, is kind of fact.

so explain how they were negligent and also realize this plays directly into the level of duty they had to you. In order to determine if they were negligent, you must first establish the duty they had to you. Only then can you determine if they breached the requirements determined by that level of duty.

Why, despite being repeatedly asked, won't you explain how the theft occurred? You put the item in a locker, put your lock on the locker and... it didn't walk away all by itself. So what happened, and how did the hostel fail to exercise ordinary care?

Quote:

---

Quoting California Civil Code, Sec. 1852.

---

A depositary for hire must use at least ordinary care for the preservation of the thing deposited.

---

As you bring up Sec. 1860:

Quote:

---

Quoting California Civil Code, Sec. 1860.

---

If an innkeeper, hotelkeeper, operator of a licensed hospital, rest home or sanitarium, boardinghouse or lodginghouse keeper, keeps a fireproof safe and gives notice to a guest, patient, boarder or lodger, either personally or by putting up a printed notice in a prominent place in the office or the room occupied by the guest, patient, boarder, or lodger, that he keeps such a safe and will not be liable for money, jewelry, documents, furs, fur coats and fur garments, or other articles of unusual value and small compass, unless placed therein, he is not liable, except so far as his own acts shall contribute thereto, for any loss of or injury to such articles, if not deposited with him to be placed therein, nor in any case for more than the sum of five hundred dollars ($500) for any or all such property of any individual guest, patient, boarder, or lodger, unless he shall have given a receipt in writing therefor to such guest, patient, boarder or lodger.

---

So, did the hostel in fact have a fireproof safe and give you notice of the safe as outlined in the statute? If so, they would appear to be statutorily shielded from your claim.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

so explain how they were negligent and also realize this plays directly into the level of duty they had to you. In order to determine if they were negligent, you must first establish the duty they had to you. Only then can you determine if they breached the requirements determined by that level of duty.

---

Isnt their duties established by law? Because I think the texts that I quoted (lawyer´s website´s and Note.com´s) are based on law. Hotel and hostels have some commom duties. So all theses commom duties (aplicable for every ordinary hostel in California) would be aplicable for me, too, in a simple way, as we can see in the texts that I quoted, right?

Quote:

---

Quoting bipenett

---

Isnt their duties established by law? Because I think the texts that I quoted (lawyer´s website´s and Note.com´s) are based on law. Hotel and hostels have some commom duties. So all theses commom duties (aplicable for every ordinary hostel in California) would be aplicable for me, too, in a simple way, as we can see in the texts that I quoted, right?

---

If they have a liability, the max. would seem to be $250. Hopefully your stolen property was no more than that because that appears to be the statutory cap.

Quote:

---

bipenett;521320]Isnt their duties established by law?

---

yes but...beyond the particular level of duty, which MKIA posted, common law rules in interpreting what does "ordinary care" mean.

Quote:

---

Because I think the texts that I quoted (lawyer´s website´s and Note.com´s) are based on law.

---

Either you misread your quotes or are misunderstanding what you read but they do not say the hostel would be liable in all situations. So, you have to determine if they were liable in your situation and so far, between refusing to answer questions posed to you or simply arbitrarily stating they were and refusing to provide any support for the statement, that cannot be established. So far, nothing you have posted would suggest they are liable though.

Quote:

---

Hotel and hostels have some commom duties. So all theses commom duties (aplicable for every ordinary hostel in California) would be aplicable for me, too, in a simple way, as we can see in the texts that I quoted, right?[

---

yes but as I said, you are either misreading the quotes or misunderstanding them. They do not state the hostel would be liable in your situation, at least based on what you have presented here.

I again ask, did you place the item in a locker with YOUR lock on it? If so, how was entry made into the locker?

The answers to those question may very well determine whether ANY liability rests with the innkeeper or not.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Why, despite being repeatedly asked, won't you explain how the theft occurred? You put the item in a locker, put your lock on the locker and... it didn't walk away all by itself. So what happened, and how did the hostel fail to exercise ordinary care?

As you bring up Sec. 1860:

So, did the hostel in fact have a fireproof safe and give you notice of the safe as outlined in the statute? If so, they would appear to be statutorily shielded from your claim.

---

The theft happend while I was outside the hostel (walking around). I dont know what happened exactly. But they are negligents since they dont have minimal security items, not at all, such as cameras, a "doorkeeper", magnet cards for guests, door locked from street or stuff like that. None of these they have.

Fireproof safe?! lol. They only gave me a mall locker that could be locked by my own lockpad.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I again ask, did you place the item in a locker with YOUR lock on it? If so, how was entry made into the locker?

The answers to those question may very well determine whether ANY liability rests with the innkeeper or not.

---

The locked was intact. No damage at all. I was using my own key-lockpad.

Quote:

---

Quoting bipenett

---

The locked was intact. No damage at all. I was using my own key-lockpad.

---

So ... they provided you with a locker, you provided your own lock, and somehow the thief still managed to get IN to the locker to steal your unidentified property?

Sounds like they arguably provided more than what they are required to. At best they are liable for nothing, at worst they are liable for $250 (per statute). Getting permission from the court and hiring an attorney to pursue $250 in small claims court would seem counterproductive to me.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

So ... they provided you with a locker, you provided your own lock, and somehow the thief still managed to get IN to the locker to steal your unidentified property?

Sounds like they arguably provided more than what they are required to. At best they are liable for nothing, at worst they are liable for $250 (per statute). Getting permission from the court and hiring an attorney to pursue $250 in small claims court would seem counterproductive to me.

---

It wasnt an unidentified property.. It was an eletronic device that everybody in the place knew that I had. Is it possible to someone to represent me in the small claim court?