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

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

Although many do not think about it, transferring outerwear or a backpack into the hands of the cloakroom attendant leads to the onset of legal relations. They are described in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in Chapter 47 "Storage". Article 886 reads, that “under a storage agreement, one party (custodian) undertakes to store the thing transferred to it by the other party (bailor) and return this thing safely.” In accordance with Article 891, the custodian obliged not only do everything possible to ensure the safety of the things accepted, but also, “if storage is carried out free of charge, <...> take care of the thing accepted for storage no less than about your own things.” For loss, shortage or damage to items accepted for storage, the custodian carries responsibility. The code also has a special article 924, dedicated directly storing things in wardrobes.

At first glance, the phrase “storage agreement” and the usual handing over of things to the wardrobe do not go well together, but this impression is deceptive. Article 887 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation equates it to an agreement concluded in simple written form, if the acceptance of things “is certified by the custodian by issuing to the depositor <…> a number token (number), other sign certifying the acceptance of things for storage, if such a form of confirmation of acceptance of things for storage is provided for by law or other legal act or is customary for this type of storage.” Thus, receiving a wardrobe number or a key to a locker in a supermarket is essentially tantamount to concluding a contract. If the delivered item was not returned to you (or was returned damaged), then in accordance with Article 902 the damages caused must be reimbursed.

However, the relevant judicial practice is very limited. Some lawyers suggestthat such cases are either resolved pre-trial, or that such claims seem futile to most victims. However, in 2018, the Vasileostrovsky District Court of St. Petersburg satisfied a lawsuit by a woman who, while visiting a private clinic, left an expensive fur coat in her wardrobe, and after visiting the doctor did not find it on the hanger. This decision was not prevented even by the woman’s lack of a number - during the trial, the court found that they were not issued at all at the institution, so the storage agreement was actually concluded at the moment when the fur coat was hung on a hook. The fact that surveillance cameras captured the man who took the fur coat did not relieve the clinic from liability: a criminal case of theft and a civil case of non-compliance with the storage agreement are two different processes.

Probably, in the case of the fur coat, the plaintiff was lucky that she did not leave her phone, wallet or other valuables in her pocket. You can prove that a jacket or bag handed over to the cloakroom was torn, hidden or stolen using video recordings or witness testimony. Confirming that there were some valuables inside is much more difficult, if not impossible. Sometimes you can find corresponding advertisements that the administration is not responsible for items left in pockets. Lawyer Andrey Semenov evaluates the chances are like this: “If, for example, you checked into the wardrobe a bag containing an expensive camera, then you can immediately forget about it. Because it is impossible to prove that he was there. You didn’t list the contents against receipt.”

Not true

What do our verdicts mean?

Read on the topic:

1. Advice from a Russian lawyer
2. Advice from a Belarusian lawyer
3. Advice from a Ukrainian lawyer
4. https://medialeaks.ru/za-ostavlennye-veshhi-administraciya-otvetstvennosti-ne-neset-na-chej-storone-zakon/