Bailments Flashcards
Letourneau v Otto Mobile Homes
Facts: P had trailer stolen from parking lot adjacent to D repair shop. P claims damages from D. D claims there was no bailment.
Held: P wins. Temporary possession of trailer had passed from P to D (bailment). D failed to establish it met the standard of care of a prudent owner. Also, bailment action can be based on negligence alone, and judge finds D breached duty of care to properly secure vehicle. No contributory negligence by P.
Reasons:
- Possession can be inferred when it is a necessary incident of some other function.
o P had a service contract with D . Possession by D was necessarily incidental to the service contract, since D had to assume control of the Trailer to perform the repairs.
- The fact that the trailer was not on D’s property is no bar to create a bailor-bailee relationship
- Contributory negligence rarely found in bailment cases
Punch v Savoy’s Jewellers
Facts: P had ring ($11K in value, known by D) in need of repair, gave to D. D unable to repair, so sent to A in Toronto by mail (value of $100 for insurance). A repaired, couldn’t mail back because postal strike. A elected to send back through a service B. A’s employee and B’s drive both not super familiar with how to fill out values, so they did $100. Turns out B had policy not to deliver for jewellery over $300, driver should have known. Ring was never delivered, unknown if theft/loss. B did not contact driver for some reason.
Held: P wins. D and A liable for breach of duty as bailees (failure to obtain instructions from P for transport in postal strike; failure to give proper valuation of ring to B; failure to stipulate insurance coverage as a term of carriage). B liable to P for unexplained loss of ring. D can recover against B, A cannot recover against B (responsibility for shipping at $100 value).
o P and B have relationship, risk not to remote to B of P as the ring owner
- B is fully liable to P for the ring since its contract of carriage specifically contemplates the existence of an owner to whom a duty of care is owed.
The Winkfield
Facts: D ship crashed and sunk other ship M, had to pick up M’s passengers. Most of M’s cargo sunk. P is Postmaster General and sues D for paid claims put forward by M’s cargo owners, but also for cargo without claims put forward.
Held: P wins. In an action against a stranger for loss of goods caused by his negligence, the bailee in possession can recover the value of the goods, although he would have had a good answer to an action by the bailor for damages for the loss of the thing bailed.
