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 contact a qualified attorney or consult official legal sources.

Introduction

The sign "No responsibility for wardrobe" is ubiquitous in restaurants, theaters, clubs, or trade fairs. Many operators rely on it to protect themselves from claims for damages. But is this notice really legally effective? Can guests lose their rights just because a sign indicates this?

This contribution delves deeper into the subject and shows when liability actually exists, what legal limits such a disclaimer has, and what operators should consider. We build on the foundations of the article on the legal classification of wardrobe storage, in which it has already been explained that the type of wardrobe plays a central role.

Summary (Key Points at a Glance)

• General disclaimers of liability are often ineffective: A sign stating "No responsibility for wardrobe" is often not sufficient to relieve operators of responsibility.

• The legal responsibility depends on the type of wardrobe: The crucial factor is whether there is a real duty of care.

• Storage contract or not? When a jacket is handed over at a supervised wardrobe, a contractual obligation automatically arises for the operator.

• General Terms and Conditions and individual regulations can limit liability: Liability risks cannot be completely excluded, but they can be minimized through clear and legally secure agreements.

1. Why the sign "No responsibility for wardrobe" is often ineffective

Many operators assume that a simple sign is enough to exclude any responsibility for deposited jackets or bags. However, this is a legally problematic assumption.

Under German law, General Terms and Conditions (AGB) according to §§ 305 ff. BGB apply as soon as a contract exists between the guest and the operator. These are subject to a content control to prevent unfair or surprising clauses.

A general disclaimer of liability is therefore ineffective if:

• The operator has assumed a real duty of care (e.g., by providing a supervised wardrobe).

• The clause violates § 309 No. 7 BGB, which prohibits disclaimers of liability for intent or gross negligence.

• It unfairly disadvantages the customer, as they can expect that deposited items will be kept safe.

Example:

A guest hands over their jacket at a club at the supervised wardrobe and receives a tag. Despite a sign stating "No responsibility for wardrobe," the operator must be liable for the loss since they have taken on a duty of care.

2. The Crucial Question: Is There a Storage Contract?

Whether liability exists fundamentally depends on whether a storage contract has come into existence between the guest and the operator according to §§ 688 ff. BGB.

When does a storage contract arise?

• Supervised, centrally deposited wardrobe: As soon as a jacket is actively received and stored (e.g., with a wardrobe tag), a storage contract automatically arises.

• Unsupervised wardrobe within the guest's view: If the jacket is hung up independently, without the operator taking special precautions, no storage contract is established – responsibility lies with the guest.

This distinction has already been discussed in detail in the previous article on the legal classification of wardrobes.

3. How Operators Can Legally Secure Their Liability

Why General Disclaimers of Liability Are Problematic

A general sign "No responsibility for wardrobe" is often not sustainable legally if a duty of care exists. Instead, operators should focus on legally effective measures:

✔ Formulate clear AGB: It can be specified that no liability for valuable items in bags is assumed.

✔ Improve security measures: Video surveillance or limited access to supervised wardrobes can minimize liability risks.

✔ Communicate information transparently: Guests should be informed about applicable regulations when handing over their jackets.

4. Legally Secure Alternatives to "No Responsibility" Signs

If operators want to limit their liability, they should use precise and understandable information. Some examples of formulations:

Not permissible: "No liability for wardrobe."

Better: "We ask our guests not to leave valuable items in deposited wardrobes. The operator is only liable for damages caused by gross negligence or intent."

Even safer is to record corresponding information in the AGBs and actively point them out when handing over the wardrobe item.

Conclusion: When Operators Really Do Have Liability

• The sign "No responsibility for wardrobe" is not a free pass – depending on the type of wardrobe, there is a legal liability.

• Whether a storage contract exists determines liability – a supervised wardrobe with a tag obligates safe storage.

• General disclaimers of liability are ineffective in AGB – legally effective limitations of liability must be formulated clearly and specifically.

• Operators should adjust their AGBs and communicate them legally secure to minimize liability risks.

Do You Want to Design Your Wardrobe Legally Secure?

We have thoroughly analyzed all relevant legal aspects surrounding wardrobe storage – from creating effective AGBs to practical solutions in case a wardrobe tag is lost.

Download our PDF "The Wardrobe Legally Secure" now and receive valuable tips to optimally secure yourself as an operator.