There is no doubt: Daddy Yankee is one of the most relevant artists on the Latin scene. The Puerto Rican is considered one of the pioneering performers in the world of reggaeton, and that is why his name does not go unnoticed. In the last few hours, new details have come to light about a legal battle that the singer has open in our country. The Provincial Court of Valencia has ruled that a renowned hotel in the capital of Túria must compensate the artist for a robbery that he suffered in 2018 at the establishment.
As we said, justice has ruled in favor of the rapper after considering that the hotel, the Melià València, is civilly responsible for having facilitated the thieves’ theft of the jewelry stolen from the Con Calma singer, valued at more than one million. of American dollars. The Provincial Court partially upholds the appeal filed against the ruling of the Court of First Instance that dismissed the lawsuit of the well-known music producer and forces the business owner of the hotel to compensate the Rumbatón performer and his partner with $908,950.
The events occurred in August 2018. The sentence states that the thief, who was captured by the hotel’s security cameras, “could not have committed the theft if he had not had the invaluable although ignored collaboration of the defendant.” In fact, already in its day the Levante-EMV media reported that the hotel staff itself provided a copy of the keys to the two rooms, where the goyas were stolen.
The criminals were never identified. The thieves even opened the safe “without requiring reliable identification.” There, the rapper had kept two watches, three gold chains, a cross, four bracelets, three rings and a pair of diamond earrings. The ruling appealed by the establishment argued that “the pre-existence of the jewelry and money in the hotel had not been proven.” In addition, he also expressed that the responsibility of the hotelier occurs in cases in which “the theft is of objects commonly used by a traveler, not when it involves jewelry of extraordinary value, the introduction of which into the hotel was not communicated to the hotel.”
However, the court has rejected these arguments. The Eighth Section of the Provincial Court has carried out an updated reinterpretation that adjusts “to the social reality of our time” of the article of the Civil Code that includes the responsibility of “fondistas and innkeepers”, “a reality today obsolete due to the wide range of establishments that not only offer food and bed. Thus, the magistrate understands that the artist and his partner “stayed in a modern four-star hotel, in which the rooms in which they stayed were equipped with a specific security measure for the clients’ valuable belongings and belongings: The security box”.
Likewise, the court argues that the fact that clients use this theft prevention device, leaving their jewelry and valuables there, instead of leaving them on the table in any way, already implies that the client “compliances with the measure of security that the hotel offers you”, without the need for you to tell anyone what you deposit in the box. Finally, what the ruling does reject is the lawsuit by the singer’s brother-in-law, who claimed for the theft of a gold cord valued at 10,000 dollars and another 42,000. In his case, the belongings were in a backpack on the floor of the room.
