The Plaintiff

The Plaintiff

Facts

The Plaintiff was the owner of a motor vehicle, a 1965 Chevrolet Corvette. The Plaintiff delivered the car to the Defendant’s workplace, on or about 23rd December 1965, for a “grease and oil change” repairs. The Plaintiff left the vehicle in the custody of the Defendant’s service manager, along with the keys to it. Some days later, the Plaintiff telephoned the Defendant through its principal officer, Mr. Russell Seibert, with a proposal that Mr. Selbert sells the car for him, a plan to which Mr. Selbert agreed. On the strength of this understanding, the Plaintiff did not remove the vehicle from the Defendant’s workplace even after the completion of the repairs and service.

Part of the agreement was for the vehicle to be kept at the open used car lot for ease and convenience of assessment by potential buyers. However, it was unclear whether the Defendant actualized this in the course of the bailment. Subsequently, the Plaintiff averred that he never saw his vehicle again after somewhat learning that the car was no longer within the Defendant’s premises. Additionally, he reported the matter to the police but did not recover his vehicle.

Procedural History

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for breach of duty of care under the bailment as well as for negligence. The vehicle was valued at $3,100.00 as of 23rd December 1965. The Plaintiff sought judgment against the Defendant for $3,100 plus interest. The Defendant filed a motion seeking to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds of want of proof of the two causes of action. The Defendant argued that it was merely a gratuitous bailee on whom no implications of negligence should not be attached and that the Plaintiff had failed to show how the Defendant was negligent. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s central argument was that he had proved the existence of a bailment. This was through his uncontroverted testimony that he delivered his vehicle to the Defendant for servicing and that the act of leaving the car at the workshop in the hope of it being sold did not alter the terms of the bailment.

Issues for Determination.

Whether a bailment relationship existed between the Plaintiff and Defendant.

Whether the bailment was mutual or gratuitous.

Whether the Defendant was negligent in the manner it handled the vehicle.

Holding

1. A bailment relationship existed by the fact of a vehicle being delivered to the Defendant for servicing.
2. The bailment was both mutual at the point the vehicle was delivered to the Defendant for servicing but turned into gratuitous when Plaintiff requested that it be held at the Defendant’s premises pending the sale.
3. The Defendant was negligent.

Reasoning

A bailment is defined as the retaining of goods or other property of another person in circumstances that create an obligation on the person holding the property to deliver the same to another individual at a specific period or upon demand (Aronette Manufacturing Co.

1. Capitol Piece Dye Works, Inc., 1959). The Plaintiff delivered the vehicle to the Defendant for servicing, and the circumstances implied an obligation on the Defendant to produce the car upon demand by the Plaintiff. Therefore, a bailment relationship existed between the two parties.

A mutual bailment exists where both parties have a mutual benefit in the transaction creating the bailment relationship: it is gratuitous when it is for the sole benefit of the bailor (Dalton v. Hamilton Hotel Operating Co., 1926). By the act of failing to produce the vehicle, a presumption of negligence arose against the Defendant, whether ordinary or gross. The Defendant was then obliged to discharge the burden of rebutting this presumption of negligence. The Defendant failed to bring forth a legally sound explanation to rebut the presumption. Therefore, the Court found in favor of the Plaintiff for both causes of action, granting a judgment of $3,100.00 plus interest.