Is it true that no one is responsible for things in the wardrobe?

A frequent wardrobe attribute in the post -Soviet space is a sign with the message that the administration is not responsible for the things left there. We checked whether such a statement has a legal justification.

Although many do not think about it, the transfer of outerwear or a backpack into the hands of a dressing room leads to the onset of legal relations. They are described in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in Chapter 47 "Storage". Article 886 saysthat "under a storage agreement, one side (keeper) undertakes to store a thing handed over to it by the other side (blaars) and return this thing in preservation." In accordance with Article 891 Keeper Malicated Not just to do everything possible to ensure the preservation of the accepted things, but also, "if storage is carried out free of charge, <...> take care of storing things no less than your things." For the loss, shortage or damage to things accepted for storage, the keeper carries responsibility. The Code has a special article 924, dedicated Direct storage of things in wardrobes.

At first glance, the phrase “storage agreement” and the usual delivery of things in the wardrobe are not combined, but this impression is deceptive. Article 887 of the Civil Code Equals Its to the agreement concluded in a simple written form, if the adoption of things is “certified by the keeper by the issuance of the lignor <...> number of license plate (number), another sign certifying the receipt of things for storage, if such a form of confirmation of storage things is provided for by law or other legal act or common for this type of storage”. Thus, receiving a number in a wardrobe or a key from a cabinet in a supermarket, in fact, is equivalent to concluding an agreement. If the commissioned thing was not returned to you (or returned to the damaged one), then in accordance with Article 902 the losses caused should be Reimbed.

Moreover, the relevant judicial practice is very limited. Some lawyers suggestthat such cases either decide in a pre -trial order, or most of the victims of such claims seem unpromising. However, in 2018, the Vasileostrovsky District Court of St. Petersburg Satisfied A lawsuit of a woman who, when visiting a private clinic, left an expensive fur coat in the wardrobe, and after a visit to the doctor did not find her on a hanger. Even the absence of a number of numbers did not interfere with such a decision - during the trial, the court found that they were not issued at all in the institution, so the storage agreement was actually concluded at the time when the fur coat was hung on the hook. The clinic did not freed the clinic from liability as the fact that the surveillance cameras captured a person who had carried away a fur coat: a criminal case of the theft and civil about non -compliance with the storage agreement - two different processes.

Probably, in the case of a fur coat, the plaintiff was lucky that she did not leave a phone, wallet or other valuable things in her pocket. It is possible to prove that the jacket or bag was torn, hid or stolen, by video recordings or testimony of witnesses. Confirm that there were some values ​​inside is many times more difficult, if at all possible. Sometimes you can find appropriate Ads The fact that the administration is not responsible for the things left in the pockets. Lawyer Andrey Semenov Evaluates The chances are like this: “If, for example, you put a bag in a wardrobe in which you lay an expensive camera, then you can immediately forget about it. Because to prove that he was there is unrealistic. You did not list the contents on receipt. ”

Not true

What do our verdicts mean?

Read on the topic:

1. Councils from Russian lawyer
2. Tips from the Belarusian lawyer
3. Councils from Ukrainian lawyer
4. https://medialeaks.ru/za-stavlennye-veshhi-administraciya-otvetstvensosti-ne-na-che-storone-zakon/