Tourism Law in Europe

25 it in accordance with its nature, good faith, usage and the law (Art. 1258 CC), but also to the rules of consumer protection, when the customer has such a condition. On the other hand, what can be admitted is a limitation of the employer's liability, provided that the guest has been previously informed of the quantum for which he will be liable for the objects deposited in the individual safe deposit box, with the guest assuming the risk for the goods that exceed the value of this limit. A separate mention should be made of the question of the traveller's non-compliance with the instructions given by the hotelier urging him to keep his valuables in one of the safety deposit boxes, whether individual or central. On this point, it is necessary to specify whether the employer can exonerate his strict liability, since it is the client who ignores his recommendations and, consequently, who does not follow the employer's instructions in relation to the safekeeping and custody of his belongings. On this point, it is necessary to distinguish between different situations, some of which would, in our opinion, exonerate such liability and others which, at best, would mitigate it. In this respect, it is stated 54 that even if the clients had not handed over to the hotelier those goods of special value for safekeeping, ignoring the recommendations made by the owner of the hotel business, and consequently violating articles 1783 and 1784 CC, the businessman will be liable for their loss or deterioration, as it is not possible to exempt his responsibility for safekeeping and custody, not even through a unilateral declaration of responsibility, despite making it public through posters and notices to the client, because it is the exclusive responsibility of the employer to ensure that no one accesses the guest's room without the consent of the latter 55 . However, it should be clarified that 54 BARRERA PÉREZ, M. “Responsabilidad de los hoteleros por los vehículos introducidos en sus establecimientos. Comentario a la SAP de Sevilla de 2 de junio de 2004 (AC 2004, 1082)”, Revista Aranzadi de Derecho Patrimonial, no. 14, 2005, p. 242; and SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ, A. “El depósito derivado del hospedaje y la responsabilidad del hospedero”, in I Jornadas sobre Derecho y Turismo , Javier Melgosa Arcos (Ed.), Ed. Fundación Cultural Santa Teresa, Ávila, 1995, p. 35. 55 Certainly, if the guest has at all times taken care of the entrance to his room in such a way that only those persons who live with the guest or the employer's assistants have access to it, the loss or theft of an object of value left in that accommodation unit outside the individual safety box, should be imputed to the employer whose security measures have not been sufficient to avoid the damaging incident. Vid . PÉREZ MARTELL R. & GONZÁLEZ CABRERA, I. El alojamiento turístico: Problemática y soluciones en la ejecución del contrato de hospedaje , op . cit ., pp. 111 et seq .; and SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ, A. “El depósito derivado del hospedaje y la responsabilidad del hospedero”, op . cit ., p. 40. In the same sense is expressed in the judgement of the Provincial Court of Seville, in its Judgement of 2 June 2004. However, CEBALLOS MARTÍN, M. M. & PÉREZ GUERRA, R. El contrato turístico de alojamiento hotelero , op . cit ., p. 79, are against this when they state that if the hotelier, as depositary, is made liable simply and without further ado for all the things that the traveller brings into the hotel, an excessive burden is imposed