Brief Fact Summary. Appellee (Plaintiff) parked his car in a single entrance/ single exit parking garage taking a ticket and leaving his car locked. When he returned his car was gone.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A bailment for hire was created in this case and when there was non-delivery the Appellee (Plaintiff) was entitled to the presumption of negligence provided by statute.
Issue. Does the act of parking one’s car in a parking garage create a bailment?
Held. Yes. Judgment affirmed.
The Court must determine the legal relationship created by the parking of the car in the garage. First, the Court examined the status of the law in other jurisdictions, noting that New Jersey courts have adopted a rule outside of the traditional bailment concepts in park-and-lock cases. In New Jersey, the owner of a garage is subject to a presumption of negligence upon proof that a car parked in the defendant’s garage was damaged. The New Jersey approach shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that there was no breach of a standard of reasonable care. The Tennessee Court here rejected such an approach although it noted that the same policy considerations were present in both rules.
The Court found that a bailment for hire was created in this case when the property was left in Appellant’s (Defendant) parking garage. A bailment is created when the owner of a chattel gives custody and control over the chattel to another to hold until the owner requests delivery. The bailee (or recipient) is under an obligation to return the object. In this case the failure of Appellant (Defendant) to deliver the car upon Appellee’s (Plaintiff) return subjected the Appellant to a statutory presumption of negligence. The Court noted that the fact that Appellee (Plaintiff) kept the keys to the vehicle raised a question as to the completeness of the bailment, but resolved the question in favor of Appellee (Plaintiff). Thus, the burden of proof shifted to Appellant (Defendant), who did not endeavor to prove a lack of negligence in this case.
The Court recognizes the difficulty of establishing a rule to govern all cases involving parking lots. The Court found that the facts here were sufficient to establish more than a mere licensor-licensee relationship. Thus, the Appellee (Plaintiff) was entitled to recover damages for the non-delivery of the car.
The duty of care that the city, as a landowner, owed the plaintiff is measured by a single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances whereby foreseeability shall be a measure of liability.View Full Point of Law