Note: This article does not constitute legal advice. It is intended solely for general information and is based on carefully researched content. For a binding legal assessment, please consult a qualified attorney or refer to official legal sources.

Introduction

The coat check ticket is more than just an organizational tool. It has legal significance and can determine the return of a garment in case of a dispute. Whoever presents a ticket is entitled to the corresponding jacket – regardless of whether they are the rightful owner. This follows from § 807 BGB, which defines the ticket as a bearer instrument.

This legal regulation presents operators with challenges, particularly when a ticket is lost or falls into the wrong hands. The question of liability in the event of theft or damage to the jacket is also a central issue.

1. The coat check ticket as a bearer instrument under § 807 BGB

According to § 807 BGB, a coat check ticket is considered a bearer instrument. This means that merely possessing the ticket is sufficient to assert a claim for the return of the jacket. The operator is generally not required to conduct an identity check.

A common problem arises when a coat check ticket is lost or stolen. A third party can present the ticket and retrieve the jacket. Since the operator has no way to identify the actual owner, they are forced to hand over the jacket to the person presenting the ticket.

A guest who loses their ticket and later finds that their jacket has already been picked up typically has no claim for damages against the operator, as long as the operator followed standard procedures.

2. The custody contract and the operator's liability

Whether an operator is liable for the loss or damage of a jacket depends on whether a custody contract has been formed according to §§ 688 ff. BGB.

A custody contract exists when the jacket is handed over at a supervised coat check and received by the operator. In this case, the coat check ticket serves as proof of the handover. The operator agrees to store the garment carefully and return it to the rightful owner.

If there is no supervised coat check and guests hang their jackets themselves, no custody contract is formed. In that case, the operator is not responsible for loss or theft.

A theater with a monitored coat check is an example of a clear custody contract. Here, the operator has a duty of care for the jackets handed in. In a club where guests hang their own jackets, however, no such obligation exists.

3. Liability for loss or theft

If a custody contract exists, the operator is generally liable for the loss or damage of the coat check. However, liability is limited.

An operator cannot be held liable if:

• the jacket is lost due to force majeure, such as a burglary,

• the guest left valuables in their pockets that were stolen (provided this is excluded in the terms and conditions).

Often, liability is also limited to the current value of the jacket. This means that not the purchase price is reimbursed, but only an amount equivalent to the current market value of the garment. Many operators also set a maximum limit for reimbursement, which is defined in their terms and conditions.

4. Measures to minimize risk for operators

Coat check operators can take various measures to minimize liability risks.

A clear provision in the terms and conditions is an important step. Here, liability limitations can be defined, such as limiting to the current value of the jacket or excluding valuables from liability.

When a coat check ticket is lost, the coat check should not be handed over without further verification. An identity check or the completion of a loss report can help prevent abuse. A small fee for lost tickets may also encourage guests to handle their ticket more carefully.