Tourism Law in Europe

35 is provided in a place likely to cause damage or that could endanger the health or physical integrity of those who use it. It is precisely in these matters that the autonomous community regulations rightly have an impact, establishing the conditions to be met by such dwellings in their respective territories. Consequently, if such requirements are not complied with and a claim arises, it will be difficult to declare it an accident and it is very likely that liability for the harmful event can be attributed to the host in terms similar to those seen above for the accommodation contract. However, at the time, we pointed out that on this point it was necessary to go further, as the hotel businessman was required to exercise extra diligence that was in line with the prudence and diligence that a good businessman would have to exercise about the specific services that he would provide. It is this prudence and aggravated diligence (according to Article 1104 CC), which we find it difficult to require, in general, in accommodation contracts made in tourist flats, especially when these are offered by private individuals. Notwithstanding the above, and when a damaging event occurs, it is always possible to demand the prudence required of a good father of a family. It is also unclear whether the burden of proof in court would be reversed, at least for one part of the hosts, since this presumption of fault can be predicated on the employer, but does not seem feasible for the private individual. What is easier to defend is that, if the damage arises from the execution of the low-cost accommodation contract, but has its origin in a tort, we see it as absolutely congruent that the court remains free to choose whether to apply the rules of contractual or non- contractual liability, since the unity of events also justifies the compensation claim, as we have already stated above 77 . Concerning the guest's luggage, however, the situation changes. The severe liability regime foreseen for the hotelier in articles 1783 and 1784 CC does not seem to be enforceable in all its rigour, as the truth is that on very many occasions the accommodation is accessed without there being a physical meeting between the parties to the contract, as sometimes the keys are handed overusing electronic padlock codes or by other even less secure means, such as leaving them under a flowerpot, on top of a fire 77 We consider the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court, among others, in the judgment of 8 April 1999, to be applicable to the case.