ORAL ARGUMENTS (A)

Opening Statement

Your Lordship, esteemed members of the bench, and learned counsel, I appear before this
Honorable Court on behalf of the Plaintiff to address a matter of significant legal import: the liability
of hotel authorities for the loss of a car from their premises, specifically concerning valet parking
services. In the next few minutes, I will expound upon the legal principles and precedents that firmly
establish the stringent accountability of hoteliers for the safety and security of guests' belongings,
including their vehicles.

Introduction

Your Lordship, esteemed members of the bench, the question of hotel owners' liability for the loss
or damage to their guests' property has been a contentious legal issue, steeped in historical and
jurisprudential complexity. In light of this, it is imperative to draw upon the rich tapestry of legal
discourse from various common law jurisdictions to provide a comprehensive framework for the
resolution of the present case.

Prima Facie Rule

Your Lordship, at the heart of this debate lies the prima facie rule, a cornerstone of innkeeper
liability jurisprudence, as elucidated in the landmark case of Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. This rule presumes hotel owners to be liable for the loss or damage to guests'
goods unless they can demonstrate, beyond doubt, that such loss or damage occurred without any
fault on their part. This presumption emanates from the sacred trust and confidence inherent in the
relationship between hoteliers and guests, wherein the former assumes a solemn duty of care
towards the latter's property.

Application of Legal Precedents

Your Lordship, permit me to direct the attention of this august Court to the seminal decision in
Mahamad Ravuther v. British Indian Steam Navigation Co. Ltd, wherein the High Court unequivocally
affirmed the absolute liability of hotel owners for the loss or damage to guests' vehicles. This
liability, Your Lordship, transcends any attempt to circumvent it through contractual clauses or
limitations. The duty of care expected from hoteliers in safeguarding guests' vehicles is sacrosanct
and cannot be arbitrarily abrogated.

Public Policy Considerations

Moreover, Your Lordship, it is essential to underscore the broader public policy considerations that
underpin this legal doctrine. The sanctity of the guest-innkeeper relationship lies at the heart of our
societal fabric, with hoteliers assuming a quasi-fiduciary duty towards their guests' property. To
dilute this duty through contractual maneuvers would not only undermine the principles of natural
justice but also jeopardize the trust and confidence upon which the hospitality industry thrives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Your Lordship, I beseech this Honorable Court to heed the clarion call of legal
precedent and public policy imperatives. The liability of hotel authorities for the loss of a car from
their premises, particularly in the context of valet parking services, is not merely a matter of
contractual interpretation but a solemn obligation grounded in centuries of legal jurisprudence and
societal trust. To uphold the Plaintiff's claim is to uphold the very essence of justice and equity.

Closing Statement

Your Lordship, esteemed members of the bench, I humbly implore this Honorable Court to render a
verdict that reverberates with the echoes of legal wisdom and societal conscience. Let the light of
justice shine bright upon the path of righteousness, as we affirm the absolute liability of hotel
authorities for the loss of the car from their premises. In so doing, we reaffirm our commitment to
the sanctity of property rights and the inviolable trust between innkeeper and guest.
 ORAL ARGUMENTS (R)
Your Lordship, esteemed members of the bench, and learned counsel, I stand before this
esteemed Court to represent the Respondent, Mirage Hotel, in defense of its reputation and
integrity in providing exemplary hospitality services. The Appellant's allegations of
negligence in the loss of their vehicle during valet parking services are devoid of merit and
fail to acknowledge the stringent standards of care and security maintained by the
Respondent. Through meticulous adherence to industry best practices and proactive risk
mitigation measures, the Respondent ensures the safety and security of guests' vehicles to
the highest degree possible.

Introduction

Your Lordship, esteemed members of the bench, the question before this Honorable Court
pertains to the liability of hotel authorities for the loss of a vehicle from their premises,
specifically during valet parking services. It is imperative to scrutinize this matter within the
framework of Indiana contract law, particularly Sections 151, 152, and 161 of the Indiana
Contract Act of 1872, to ascertain the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

Prudency of Bailee

Your Lordship, in assessing the liability of the hotel in the present scenario, it is essential to
delve into the principles established under Indiana contract law regarding the duties and
responsibilities of a bailee. Drawing upon the legal precedent set forth in Union of India v.
Udho Ram & Sons, which underscores the requirement for a bailee to exercise prudence in
safeguarding bailed goods, we assert that the Mirage Hotel diligently fulfills its duty of care
in ensuring the safety of guests' vehicles entrusted to its valet parking services.

Due Care Taken by Bailee

Your Lordship, in adherence to Section 151 of the Indiana Contract Act, the Mirage Hotel is
bound to exercise the same level of care over the bailed vehicles as a person of ordinary
prudence would with their own property. By implementing robust security measures,
including trained valet attendants and surveillance systems, and adhering to stringent
 standard operating procedures, the hotel fulfills its duty of care as mandated by law.
Furthermore, Section 152 absolves the bailee of liability if due care has been exercised,
unless there exists a contract to the contrary.

Exemption from Liability

Your Lordship, it is pertinent to consider the legal provision allowing bailees to enter into
special contracts exempting themselves from liability under Section 151. This provision
underscores the importance of contractual agreements in delineating the extent of a
bailee's responsibility and liability. The Mirage Hotel, through its valet parking agreement,
validly limits its liability for loss or damage to vehicles entrusted to its care, thereby
absolving itself of responsibility beyond the scope of the agreement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Your Lordship, I respectfully urge this Honorable Court to consider the
established legal principles and precedents governing bailee liability under Indiana contract
law. The Mirage Hotel, through its unwavering commitment to guest safety and adherence
to prescribed standards of care, has fulfilled its obligations as a bailee in safeguarding
guests' vehicles during valet parking services. Therefore, in light of the evidence presented
and the legal provisions invoked, it is incumbent upon this Honorable Court to dismiss the
Appellant's unfounded claims and uphold the integrity of the Respondent, Mirage Hotel.

Closing Statement

Your Lordship, esteemed members of the bench, I submit that the Respondent, Mirage
Hotel, stands firm in its defense against the baseless allegations leveled by the Appellant. By
meticulously adhering to legal standards and industry best practices, the hotel upholds its
commitment to guest satisfaction and safety. I therefore implore this Honorable Court to
render a just and equitable verdict, absolving the Mirage Hotel of any unwarranted liability
in the matter at hand.