Baione v. Heavey

Decision Date28 January 1932
Docket Number241-1931
Citation158 A. 181,103 Pa.Super. 529
PartiesBaione v. Heavey, Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Argued October 13, 1931

Appeal by defendant from judgment of M. C., Philadelphia County September T., 1930, No. 736, in the case of Leonard Baione v Charles D. Heavey.

Trespass to recover for negligent caring for automobile. Before Glass J., without a jury.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Finding for plaintiff in the sum of $ 194.70 and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was refusal of defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

Affirmed.

Joseph P. Gaffney, and with him Alexander S. Bauer and Frederick W. Bauer, for appellant. -- Where an owner allows a motor vehicle to be parked upon a designated space of an unfenced lot upon the payment of a fee, the relationship between the owner of the motor vehicle and the management of the parking facility is one of tenant and landlord and not one of bailment: Thompson v. Mobile Light and Railroad Company, 211 Ala. 525; Lord v. Oklahoma State Fair Association, 95 Okla. 294.

Alexander Zachary Brister, and with him Lionel Teller Schlesinger, for appellee. -- One who maintains a lot for parking cars and charges for each car parked is a bailee for hire: Galowitz v. Magner, 206 A.D. 6, 203 N.Y.S. 421; Bash v. Reading Cols D. & I. Co., 100 Pa.Super. 359.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, Cunningham and Baldrige, JJ.

OPINION

Linn, J.

Defendant appeals from judgment in trespass for negligently caring for plaintiff's automobile. The case was tried by a judge without a jury.

Defendant is lessee of a lot of ground at the northeast corner of 20th and Market Streets in Philadelphia, 158 feet on Market Street, 180 feet on 20th Street and 158 feet on Commerce Street; the eastern boundary is the brick wall of a building. On this lot, which is unfenced, defendant conducts the business of parking automobiles. On May 22, 1930, plaintiff drove his car into one of the regular entrances to the lot at 9 P. M., and delivered it to one of defendant's employees stationed there for the purpose of receiving cars. This employee collected from plaintiff a charge of $ .35 and handed to plaintiff a receipt or ticket which was read into the record by a witness as follows: "Parking space, Northeast corner 20th and Market Streets, Philadelphia. Never closed. 'D' aisle, 18.05. May 22nd. Cash register No. 1916." "And it says": "Charges are for use of parking space only and management assumes no liability of any kind." On the other side it says: "Other spaces, 1815 Market Street."

Defendant's employee then took possession of the car and placed it in "'D' aisle," along the brick wall on the east side of the lot. At about 11 o'clock, when plaintiff called for his car and surrendered the receipt to the defendant's employee, the car could not be found; it had disappeared. About two weeks afterward it was found in Camden, N. J., in a damaged condition. Plaintiff took possession of it, had it repaired at a cost of $ 194.70, for which sum the learned court below found in his favor.

Appellant's argument takes a wide range; he contends that the relation of the parties was that of landlord and tenant and not bailor and bailee; that defendant is relieved from liability by the terms of the receipt; that there was no evidence of negligence in caring for the car; that if there was negligence, it was not the proximate cause of the damage.

Before dealing with these contentions, we shall refer to other evidence in the record describing the relation of the parties in the circumstances. Plaintiff had parked his car with defendant "40 or 50 times" before, and was familiar with his method of doing business. When the car is delivered, he said, "they take your car and you leave the key there so they can move the car where they want to." Plaintiff said he did not read what was on the ticket, but we consider the case as though he had read it. Defendant had seven employees beside his manager at work, and he was also present on the evening in question. He handled as many as 600 cars a day and could accommodate 250 cars at once. He said his employees put away the cars when they were delivered at any one of the three entrances to the lot, and, on demand and surrender of the ticket they get the car from wherever they had placed it. He was asked "Are these attendants, which you have, supposed to look after and take care of the cars as they come in and go out?" and replied "We take the attitude that we are there to give everything in us, to park the car and look after it, but we assume no responsibility." He said that while there were but three entrances at which cars were received, cars were not required to go out by any particular exit, but might cross the sidewalks anywhere along Market, Commerce or Twentieth Streets.

Now with that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet, Inc.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 2 d2 Julho d2 1963
    ...Sley System Garages, 129 Pa.Super. 68, 69, 194 A. 472; Wendt v. Sley System Garages, 124 Pa.Super. 224, 227, 188 A. 624; Baione v. Heavey, 103 Pa.Super. 529, 158 A. 181), banks (Thomas v. First Nat'l Bank of Scranton, 376 Pa. 181, 185, 186, 101 A.2d 910) and common carriers (Turek v. Pennsy......
  • Romney v. Garage
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 25 d2 Março d2 1941
    ... ... 320, 124 N.E. 599; ... Employers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Consolidated ... Garage & Sales Co., 85 Ind.App. 674, 155 N.E ... 533; Baione v. Heavey, 103 Pa.Super. 529, ... 158 A. 181; Steenson v. Flour City Fuel & ... Transfer Co., 144 Minn. 375, 175 N.W. 681; ... Hoel v. Flour City ... ...
  • Malone v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 7 d5 Janeiro d5 1949
    ...of relieving him against his own negligence.’ Wendt v. Sley System Garages, 124 Pa.Super. 224, 227, 188 A. 624, 625; Baione v. Heavey, 103 Pa.Super. 529, 532, 158 A. 181; see Welch v. Boston & A. R. Co., 41 Conn. 333, 341; Griswold v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 53 Conn. 371, 382, 4 A. 261, 55......
  • Moranko v. Downs Racing LP
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 10 d3 Junho d3 2015
    ...control of cars, park them and issue tickets as means of identifying cars upon redelivery, a bailment is created); Baione v. Heavey, 103 Pa.Super. 529, 158 A. 181, 182 (1932) (holding relationship between a parking lot owner and an automobile owner parking a car therein was that of bailor a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT