This is called a bailment. There is a pretty general outcome.
First, I will discuss bailments. To get to the meat of the answer skip down to the horizontal break.
Here is some info from a Maryland case. I omitted citations and added emphasis. Danner v. Int'l Freight Sys. of Washington, LLC (D. Md., 2012) Maryland is a state which may honor the fine print.
There are three types of bailments, the most common one is the type you are asking about, the bailment for mutual benefit. (You watch my coat, I give you a few dollars. As opposed to, "Hey will you watch my computer while I go to the bathroom?)
A bailment relationship can arise in a variety of ways. In modern
usage, there are three general categories of bailments: (1) for the
sole benefit of the bailor; (2) for the sole benefit of the bailee;
and (3) for the mutual benefit of both.
The property should be returned in the same condition as it was delivered. A reasonable standard of care applies.
When the subject matter of a mutual bailment for hire is delivered by
the bailor to the bailee, it must be returned by the bailee in
substantially the same condition ordinary wear and tear excepted. Put
another way, the bailee in accepting possession of the bailed property
assumes the duty of exercising reasonable care in protecting it.
If the property is damaged, the bailee (the person holding the coat) is automatically found to have failed to take reasonable care. They need to explain the damage and how it was not their fault. Then the bailor (the guy who owns the coat) needs to explain why, in spite of the excuses, the bailee is the one responsible.
When the bailed chattel is either not returned or returned in a
damaged condition without legal excuse, a prima facie case of lack of
due care or negligence is made out. It is then the duty of the bailee
to go forward with proof that the loss or injury was occasioned by a
cause which excuses the bailee, thereby providing a complete defense
as the bailee is not an insurer. The bailor is then, by reason of
his burden of proof, required to overcome this defense by establishing
by a preponderance of the evidence that the bailee failed to use
ordinary care and diligence to safeguard the bailor's property, and
that failure to perform his duty caused the loss to the bailor.
So the bailee is responsible for negligence, but is not an insurer. As long as they provide the care that an ordinary person would provide in keeping their own coat, they are not responsible.
A bailee may be liable for negligence, but is not strictly liable for
loss of bailed property. This is because a bailee for hire is not an
insurer of the safety of the property entrusted to its care, but . . .
owes only such care as persons of common prudence in their own
situation and business usually use in the custody and keeping of
similar property belonging to themselves.
Another case, this one from Washington, tells us a little about limiting liability. Eifler v. Shurgard Capital Management Corp., 861 P.2d 1071, (Wash.App. Div. 2, 1993) Again, internal quotes omitted and emphasis added. These are the guys who do not honor the fine print.
The case tells us that the bailee, if the bailee is a professional bailee, cannot limit liability.
A professional bailee is one (1) whose principal business is to act as
bailee, and (2) who deals with the public on a uniform rather than
individual basis.
When a bailment for mutual benefit is also a professional bailment,
public policy will not permit the bailee to limit his or her liability
for negligence.
The court cites a popular leading California Supreme Court case (Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 Cal.2d 92 (1963)) and provides a "test to be applied in determining whether exculpatory agreements violate public policy" - in other words, if that fine print gets thrown out. The more of these elements that are true about the situation, the harder it is for the fine print to cover the bailee's ass:
1) Service to the public, perhaps even necessary to some
2) Offers the service to pretty much any customer
3) The bailee has a position of bargaining power by virtue of the service offering
4) Standard exculpatory language, take it or leave it
5) No option to pay more money for better protection
6) Property is placed under the control of the bailee
Bottom line is that if the state follows this model, the fine print is not enforceable.
Thus, the attempted but invalid exemption involves a transaction which
exhibits some or all of the following characteristics. It concerns a
business of a type generally thought suitable for public regulation.
The party seeking exculpation is engaged in performing a service of
great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical
necessity for some members of the public. The party holds himself out
as willing to perform this service for any member of the public who
seeks it, or at least for any member coming within certain established
standards. As a result of the essential nature of the service, in the
economic setting of the transaction, the party invoking exculpation
possesses a decisive advantage of bargaining strength against any
member of the public who seeks his services. In exercising a superior
bargaining power the party confronts the public with a standardized
adhesion contract of exculpation, and makes no provision whereby a
purchaser may pay additional reasonable fees and obtain protection
against negligence. Finally, as a result of the transaction, the
person or property of the purchaser is placed under the control of the
seller, subject to the risk of carelessness by the seller or his
agents.
