Tourism Law in Europe

7 Here the hotelkeeper is responsible for up to 174.70 € in the case of any damage, destruction or loss of property brought about the guest. The guest must prove that the property was in fact taken to the hotel, otherwise the hotelkeeper cannot be presumed to be liable. However, the hotelkeeper shall be unlimitedly liable for the guest’s property if the property had been deposited with him, or if he refused to receive the deposit of property in respect of which he was bound to receive deposit, and if such occurrence had been caused voluntarily or through negligence or want of skill, even of a slight degree by him or by an employee of his or by a person of whose acts he is responsible. In an interesting case Marco and Jennifer spouses Vella versus Dragonara Resort Limited , decided by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2008, the Vella family went on a weekend break at the hotel and claimed that their room was broken into and some valuables were stolen from their safety box, including an engagement ring. The Small Claims Tribunal concluded that this was a case of contributory negligence, were the guest did not actually deposit the valuables with the Hotel’s safe, but preferred to keep them in the safe of the room, and the hotel was also responsible, because it was through the inappropriate action of the hotel staff who entered for maintenance that probably stole the things therefrom. Hence, the Consumer Claims Tribunal decided that both parties were 50% responsible. The defendant appealed and the Court of Appeal analysed article 1039 of the Civil Code, however, it also cited the depositary articles of the Civil Code, and quoted article 1893 (1), whereby “ a deposit is only perfected by the delivery of the thing to the depositary ”. Consequently, the Court of Appeal noted that the hotelkeeper never assumed the responsibility of the depositary of the things belonging to the plaintiff, because these things remained in the room’s safe and therefore in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. The Court concluded that the hotelkeeper was not responsible for the loss of the rings, and the plaintiffs were made to pay for all the Court expenses. Consequently, article 1039 of the Civil Code is limited to property. In cases of personal injury of the guests, one would need to refer to the provisions of tort under the Civil Code, should a guest, visitor or a third party would be injured through the imprudence, negligence and lack of buon paterfamilias of the hotelkeeper.