Cases that are far from uncommon are, for example, a coat left on the coat hanger and not found when leaving the venue or a bag stolen from the chair. In essence, it is legitimate to ask whether in such cases the restaurateur is liable or not and, consequently, whether it is possible to request compensation for the damages suffered. In all these cases, a warehousing contract can be said to be concluded which has as its object the delivery, from the customer to the restaurateur, of a specific thing for the purpose of keeping it in order to give rise to the obligation of restitution on the part of the warehousing party. Having identified the relevant case, it should be noted that they are extended to the restaurateur, by express provision of the art. 1786 of the Civil Code (we expressly speak of "entrepreneurs of nursing homes, public entertainment establishments, bathing establishments, pensions, trattorias, sleeping carriages and the like"), the rules established by the articles. 1783 and sscc regarding hotel deposits. But with a substantial difference, between hotel and restaurant, for the purpose of determining liability - more limited in the latter - considering the structural differences of the two categories as well as the different methods of enjoyment and execution of the respective services. While the hotelier is responsible ex recepto for all the things brought by the customer into his premises (for the entire time in which the customer has the accommodation and in whatever part of the structure they are found even if within a certain value limit of up to one hundred times the value of the meal consumed ) the restaurateur for things not delivered directly for safekeeping is limited to those which it is appropriate to get rid of for the best enjoyment of the service (for example, in fact, the coat, the fur coat, the umbrella, the hat, etc.) , while the other things he carries on him and which do not constitute an obstacle to the consumption of the meal remain under the direct supervision of the customer. In the first case, the responsibility for the goods, even if not entrusted to the custody of the owner of the premises, exists for the possible theft of coats, furs, umbrellas, hats (etc.), while, in the second, for the theft (as even the loss or deterioration) of objects that remain under the supervision of the owner (such as the bag, wallet or mobile phone for example), the restaurateur cannot respond. Basically if the theft concerns objects, even if not delivered directly to the restaurateur, of which it is normal for the customer to get rid of for the best enjoyment of the service offered by the restaurateur (it is very difficult, in fact, to think of the patron of a restaurant who, even to consume a sandwich, remains with his overcoat still worn or on his legs, or with his hat on his head or umbrella anchored to the arm) the entrepreneur is responsible. If the same event affects objects, they can remain under the direct supervision of the owner because they do not constitute an obstacle to the consumption of the meal, the owner of the restaurant is not responsible.
Author: Alessandro Klun
(@acenacondiritto)
تعليقات