Short answer. Yes. Article 1974 of the Civil Code generally requires the depositary to notify you and wait for your decision before changing how the deposit is kept, but excuses that requirement when delay would cause danger. Since waiting posed a danger, the storage company could change the storage method without hearing from you first.
What the law says
The depositary may change the way of the deposit if under the circumstances he may reasonably presume that the depositor would consent to the change if he knew of the facts of the situation.
Civil Code, Article 1974 — Change in the Manner of Deposit. Read the full provision →
What the law says
before the depositary may make such change, he shall notify the depositor thereof and wait for his decision, unless delay would cause danger.
Civil Code, Article 1974 — Change in the Manner of Deposit. Read the full provision →
The underlying condition: presumed consent
Article 1974 first sets the substantive standard for changing how a deposit is kept: the depositary may change the way of the deposit if under the circumstances he may reasonably presume that the depositor would consent to the change if he knew of the facts of the situation. If a reasonable depositor in your position would have agreed to the change given the actual facts, that condition is satisfied.
Normally, notify first and wait for your answer
Beyond that substantive condition, the article adds a procedural step: the depositary must notify you and wait for your decision. That is the ordinary sequence the article expects, giving you the chance to weigh in before the change is actually made, rather than presenting it to you as something already decided after the fact, without any input from you at all.
The danger exception is exactly what covers your situation
The article states this procedural step directly, with its own exception: before the depositary may make such change, he shall notify the depositor thereof and wait for his decision, unless delay would cause danger. Because waiting for your answer posed a danger to the goods, the notify-and-wait requirement gives way, and the depositary was not required to hold off until hearing from you.
What this means for your stored goods
Since the storage becoming dangerous left no time to wait for your response, Article 1974's exception applied, and the storage company could change how your goods were kept without first hearing from you. The change itself still had to be one a reasonable depositor in your position would have consented to, given the actual danger involved. The company also remains accountable for the goods' safekeeping under the new arrangement, since the change concerns how the deposit is kept, not whether the duty of care continues.
Why both conditions still matter here
The danger exception removes the notify-and-wait step, but it does not remove the underlying substantive requirement that a reasonable depositor would have agreed to the change. So the storage company was not free to make just any change once danger excused waiting; the change still had to be the kind you would reasonably have consented to had there been time to ask.