Short answer. Usually yes. Article 2001 provides that the act of a thief or robber who has entered the hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force. Ordinary theft therefore does not excuse the hotel-keeper.

What the law says

The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force.

Civil Code, Article 2001 — Theft Not Force Majeure. Read the full provision →

Theft is a risk the hotel is supposed to guard against

Article 2001 provides that The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force. The rule refuses the hotel's most natural defence. Force majeure means something nobody could have prevented, and an intruder walking into a hotel is precisely what door staff, keys, locks and security exist to prevent. Treating an ordinary burglary as an act of God would empty the obligation of content, since it is the very risk a guest pays an establishment to manage on his behalf.

The exception is narrow

Only two things take a theft outside the rule: the use of arms, or an irresistible force. Both describe an intrusion that overwhelms whatever reasonable security was in place, not one that slipped past it. A room entered while the guest was at breakfast, a bag taken from a lobby, a duplicate key used at the desk, a stranger who followed a guest through a door left unattended: none of these engages the exception, however inventive the thief was. Where the hotel does invoke it, the incident report, the police blotter and any recording are what the argument is decided on.

What the hotel answers for

Article 2000 makes the responsibility include the loss of, or injury to, the personal property of guests caused by the servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers, though not that proceeding from force majeure. So the hotel does not escape by identifying the culprit as an outsider. Article 1999 adds that the hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel, which brings the car park and similar areas within the same scheme.

The defences that do work, and the waiver that does not

Article 2002 relieves the hotel-keeper where the loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or visitors, or where it arises from the character of the things brought into the hotel. Those are the real defences, and they are about the guest's own conduct rather than the thief's. Article 2003 removes the rest: a hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices saying he is not liable for articles brought by the guest, and a stipulation suppressing or diminishing that responsibility is void. The sign above the reception desk settles nothing.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.