Question

The Happy Times Bar and Restaurant was located on a busy downtown street. The front part of the premises consisted of the bar and a few small tables where patrons were served drinks. The rear part of the building housed the restaurant, and a patron who wished to obtain a meal at the restaurant was required to pass through the bar room to reach the restaurant. On the wall of the short passageway separating the two rooms the owner had installed a number of coat hooks where employees could place their coats or jackets. Jacobs, a stranger to the community, entered the establishment for the purpose of obtaining lunch, and as he passed through the passageway connecting the bar to the restaurant, noticed the coat hooks. He removed his overcoat, hung it on one of the hooks, and proceeded into the restaurant where he was escorted to a table for his lunch. After lunch, Jacobs proceeded to the passageway to retrieve his overcoat, only to find that it was missing. He immediately spoke with the owner, who denied responsibility for the loss. Jacobs had just purchased the overcoat the previous day at a cost of $2,200. Since the overcoat was expensive, Jacobs contemplates legal action against the establishment to recover his loss.

Advise Jacobs. How should he proceed to recover his loss? What arguments are likely to be raised by the restaurant owner? .

Answer 1

In this case Jacobs should be very much aware of the legal regulations regarding such a law and act on it so that his loss is recovered. He can state that as the restaurant was providing the facility hence it was the responsibility of the restaurant to safeguard the property because that is what is assumed. As the facility was complimentary for the primary facilities of catering food and bar facilities the quality of the complimentary services should be maintained. For example the quality of plates and dishes are maintained in which food is provided hence this is equivalent.

The restaurant owner can state that safeguarding the property of the owner is the responsibility of the owner itself and the restaurant management is not liable for any loss. The facility was provided for convenience but the responsibility was that of the owner and at the owner's own risk. Therefore Jacob needs to be liable for his own loss.