Tourism Law in Europe

19 concurrence of contractual and non-contractual liability, as the damage derives jointly from the breach of contract and a civil tort 45 . V.3. Liability for Damage to the Guest’s Effects or Property The liability assumed by the host for the damage and disappearance of goods brought into the establishment by the guest is one of the most contentious issues. And this despite the fact that this liability does have a specific legal treatment: Articles 1783 and 1784 CC, which recognise an aggravated liability, rigorous and obsolete for the current socio-economic situation, in relation to the goods brought into the establishment (liability for custody or “ ex receptor ”). According to the former, “[s] e reputa depósito necesario el de los efectos introducidos por los viajeros en las fondas o mesones. Los fondistas o mesoneros responden de ellos como tales depositarios, con tal que se hubiese dado conocimiento a los mismos, o a sus dependientes, de los efectos introducidos en su casa, y que los viajeros por su parte observen las prevenciones que dichos posaderos o sus sustitutos les hubiesen hecho sobre cuidado y vigilancia de los efectos ” 46 . According to article 1784, “[l] a responsabilidad a que se refiere el artículo anterior comprende los daños hechos en los efectos de los viajeros, tanto por los criados o dependientes de los fondistas o mesoneros, como por los 45 This is held by the Supreme Court in judgments of 9 March 1983; 16 December 1986; 10 June 1991; 21 November 1996; 8 February 2000; and 7 November 2000, among others. Among the doctrine, it is worth mentioning, among others, DE ANGEL YAGÜEZ, R. Tratado de Responsabilidad Civil , op . cit ., pp. 13 et seq .; and REGLERO CAMPOS, L. F. “Conceptos generales y elementos de delimitación”, op . cit ., p. 132. However, the latter states that the disadvantage of this idea lies not only in the fact that it is doubtful that elements of both types of liability can be included in the same case, but, above all, in the circumstance that the conventional modification of the obligor's liability regime that the damage has its origin in the non- performance of the contract. Be that as it may, the truth is that this is more theoretical than a practical problem since forensic experience shows that, in practice, problems of this nature hardly arise, in such a way that the case law perfectly harmonises them. In the opinion of JORDANO FRAGA, F. “Sobre la no aplicación efectiva de un principio general de responsabilidad contractual por los auxiliares de cumplimiento del deudor”, Anuario de Derecho Civil , Vol. XLVI, April-June, 1993, p. 923, with whom we agree, in these situations, as case law also shows us, there is room for the concurrence of contractual and non-contractual liability in favour of the victim of the damage and against the same liable party, provided that the harmful event giving rise to the injury is the consequence of a contractual non-performance and, at the same time, of the commission of a civil wrongful act. 46 The deposit of the effects brought by travellers into the inns or innkeepers is considered a necessary deposit. The innkeepers or innkeepers are responsible for them as such depositaries, provided that they or their employees have been informed of the effects brought into their house, and that the travellers for their part observe the warnings that the said innkeepers or their substitutes have given them regarding the care and vigilance of the effects (author’s translation).