Barnett v. Latonia Jockey Club

• Decision Date: 19 May 1933
• Citation: 249 Ky. 285
• Parties: Barnett v. Latonia Jockey Club.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

249 Ky. 285

Barnett v. Latonia Jockey Club.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Common Law and Equity Division.

Decided May 19, 1933.

1. Pleading. — Motion to make more specific is applicable only to pleading which states cause of action or defense, but which is so vague as not to notify adverse litigant of precise nature of claim or defense (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 134).

2. Pleading. — Motion to make petition of plaintiff, suing for loss of goods in parked automobile on defendant's race grounds, more specific, held properly sustained.

Petition alleged that plaintiff paid admission fee to defendant's race grounds, which payment was consideration for defendant's assuming control of automobile and contents, that agent directed parking of automobile, and assured plaintiff that automobile and contents would be safely kept, that goods in automobile were stolen, and loss was due to negligence of defendant.

3. Pleading. — Where plaintiff's petition stated that defendant's

agent assured plaintiff that goods in automobile parked on defendant's race grounds were safe, plaintiff could be required to furnish agent's name, only if agent's name was known to plaintiff.

4. Bailment. — Bailee never becomes insurer of articles intrusted to him except under special contract creating such obligation.

5. Pleading. — Where defendant was sued by plaintiff for goods stolen from parked automobile, plaintiff was required to inform defendant of facts, so that kind of bailment plaintiff relied on could be determined.

6. Bailment. — Liability of bailee for articles in bailed vehicle exists only in special cases which bailor must allege and prove.

Appeal from Kenton Circuit Court.

HUBBARD SCHWARTZ for appellant.

GALVIN & TRACY for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE THOMAS.

Affirming.

The appellant, and plaintiff below, with her husband attended the horse races on the tracks of defendant, Latonia Jockey Club, in Latonia, Ky., on November 5, 1927. They drove their automobile through the gate and into the grounds of the club, and parked it upon a space designated for such purpose, and, when they returned for it after the races were over, some articles of clothing that were contained in it were missing, and plaintiff filed this action in the Kenton circuit court against defendant to recover their value, which she fixed in her petition at the sum of $1,500. A demurrer filed by defendant to that pleading was sustained, followed by an amended petition filed by plaintiff. Thereupon defendant filed this motion: "The defendant, The Latonia Jockey Club, moves — 1. That the plaintiff be required to state what contract was made with the defendant with reference to the subject matter attempted to be pleaded by the plaintiff. 2. That the plaintiff be required to state how and in what manner the defendant assumed control of plaintiff's property. 3. That plaintiff be required to say who it was that assured plaintiff that the property was safe." It was sustained by the court, but plaintiff declined and refused to comply therewith; whereupon the petition was dismissed, and, complaining thereof, plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.

The articles charged to have been lost were a mink coat of the alleged value of $1,000 and a traveling bag containing other wearing apparel of the aggregate value of $500. In the original petition, plaintiff alleged, as creating the relationship between her and the defendant and the duties the latter assumed thereby, that she and her husband entered the grounds of the defendant upon its invitation and paid the admission fee therefor and attempted to park their automobile at a place selected by her; but the relative location of which to the clubhouse or grandstand containing seats for patrons was not stated. She then alleged that the defendant by and through its agents and servants refused to permit her to park the automobile at the spot selected by her, and directed its parking to be made on other territory allotted for that purpose. It was then charged that the loss of the articles was through the gross negligence of such agents and servants by reason of which defendant became liable to plaintiff for their value.

The amended petition elaborated somewhat on the averments of the original one, and stated that, at the time plaintiff and her husband entered the gate leading into the inclosure of the club grounds, "she paid the usual and customary admission fee to the agents and servants of the defendant, Latonia Jockey Club, and the payment of said fee was a consideration whereby the defendant assumed control of said automobile and the contents thereof, including the large traveling bag and contents thereof and mink coat belonging to plaintiff, and agreed to redeliver to plaintiff the contents, including the large traveling bag and contents thereof and mink coat, belonging to plaintiff, and the plaintiff was assured by the defendant by and through its officers, agents and servants that said automobile and the contents thereof would be safely kept by defendant,...