Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 314A(1), (2), 315(a) (1965); Phegley v. Graham, 358 Mo. 551, 215 S.W.2d 499 (Mo. 1948); Lonnecker v. Borris, 360 Mo. 529, 229 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. 1950); Shute v. Prom Motor Hotel, Inc., 446 S.W.2d 137 (Mo.App. 1969); Dalzell v. Dean Hotel Company, 193 Mo.App. 379, 186 S.W. 41 (1916); Anderson v. Malloy, 700 F.2d 1208 (8th Cir. 1983); Annot., 70 A.L.R.2d 628, 645-6.Wilder v. Chase Resorts, Inc., 543 S.W.2d 527 (Mo.App. 1976); Burnison v. Souders, 225 Mo.App. 1159, 35 S.W.2d 619 (Mo.App. 1931).Cumming v. Allied Hotel Corp., 144 S.W.2d 177 (Mo.App. 1940), (Dicta); Wilder v. Chase Resorts, Inc., 543 S.W.2d 527 (Mo.App. 1976) (minimizing the importance of registration by the guest).

Cumming , 144 S.W.2d at 181. The hotel guest was, thus, accorded a higher status than that of the business invitee and, unlike the business invitee, was not required to prove, as an element of his cause of action, his lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the defective condition or, in other words, his lack of contributory negligence.Wilder v. Chase Resorts, Inc. , 543 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. App. 1976) (discussing Cumming, Burnison , and Shute ). Shute and the cases it cited simply do not support the argument that an innkeeper owes the highest degree of care to its guests. In 1985, the Missouri Supreme Court abolished contributory negligence as a bar to the plaintiff's recovery in negligence cases and adopted comparative fault, which gives juries the responsibility to assess the relative fault of the parties.

Although M.A.I. 1981 3rd Edition identifies M.A.I. 22.03 as the verdict directing instruction for an "Invitee Injured" it is not the instruction mandated in all invitee cases. In Wilder v. Chase Resorts, Inc., 543 S.W.2d 527 (Mo.App. 1976) it was held that M.A.I. 22.03 was not the applicable instruction in innkeeper-guest cases. The contributory negligence of respondent was pled and submitted to the jury by appellant but the verdict of the jury demonstrated that it found respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence.

See Jaworski v.Great Scott Supermarkets, Inc., 403 Mich. 689, 272 N.W.2d 518 (1978); Szyplinski v. Midwest Mobile Home Supply Co., 308 Minn. 152, 241 N.W.2d 306, 310 (1976). Cf. Wilder v. Chase Resorts, Inc., 543 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976) (hotel guest has a right to assume premises is safe and would not have to prove either actual or constructive knowledge on the part of the defendant of a dangerous condition which caused the injury). The testimony revealed that the customer count on a normal Saturday is between 1,000 and 2,000 patrons.