Liability of the hotel keeper -

Article 1039 of the civil code deals with this. However this is not the only article related to liability of the hotel keeper. The issue is important because it provides an analysis of a number of legal topics we have seen in our course, such as responsibility for damages, quantification of damages, non-cumul and so on. Article 1039 does not deal with personal injury of the guest. It only deals with damage to property. The general principles of the civil code deals with person injury. In the case of person injury , we have to apply the general provisions on liability under the topic of responsibility: is the responsibility contractual or tortuous? Or both? This shows the importance of the relevance of non-cumul here.
J
udgements (person injury)

Cassar pullicino vs angelo xuereb (2009) - the court said that article 1039 does not apply because ehere the case dealt with personal injury. The judgement saw the claim of the claimant as contractual and applied a five year prescriptive period.
But Is a claim against the hotel keeper necessarily contractual? Lambert vs Buttigieg - in this case it was confirmed that both actions are possible. An action in tort is thus not excluded in the case of liability of the hotel keeper. Similar judgements in other spheres , such as in the relationship between an employee and an employer show that also, both cases are applicable , both contract and tort.
Many times the court will have to look at the writ of summons. If there is an issue of prescription the would have to see whether one had filed an action based on tort or on contract.
Thus: in the case of liability of the hotel keeper, article 1039 is not an exhaustive provision of the law; it does not deal with personal injury.
Article 1039: once we are saying that we are dealing with a contractual relationship between the guest and the