Question

Note: Not sure what subject this should be under. It's from a business law class.

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.

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

Answer 1

Jacob can claim his loss from the restaurant owner as the hooks were provided by the owner in the premises of his bar and restaurant which makes it obvious that the safegaurding of belongings of the customers on it are his responsibility. Untill and unless he would put a sign board of taking no such responsibility on himself. It is the responsibility of the restaurant owners to keep the properties of the customers who eat and drink there safe and provide a sign or warning if they wont be able to do so. Under this clause Jacob can claim his coat from the owner.

The owner can argue on the point saying that the hooks were provided just for the convinience of the customers and use of it does not make the owner responsible for the custody of their belongings too. The hooks were placed in the pasageway which is not in the view of the staff and customer should have kept this in consideration while placing his coat there to keep an eye on it himself.