Berglund v. Roosevelt University
| Decision Date | 21 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 58328,58328 |
| Citation | 310 N.E.2d 773,18 Ill.App.3d 842 |
| Parties | Richard C. BERGLUND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Robert J. Gorman, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
William Parker Ward, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.
Plaintiff, Richard C. Berglund, filed suit in the circuit court of Cook County seeking damages in the amount of $3,918.75 against defendant, Roosevelt University, for the loss of plaintiff's photographic equipment stored on defendant's premises. The action was grounded on two separate legal theories, breach of an implied bailment contract and negligence. After a bench trial, the trial court, apparently relying on the theory of implied bailment, entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $1,789.15, from which defendant appeals. Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal, contending that the damages awarded were inadequate.
In the fall of 1971, plaintiff was a fulltime student at Roosevelt and also served as a photographer and editor of the student newspaper. Besides expending money for plaintiff's salary and the paper's printing and operating expenses, defendant furnished the paper with an office and photographic space, including photo developing equipment for the darkroom. The Roosevelt building housed the paper's editorial office on the fourth floor and the business manager's office and photo darkroom on the seventh floor. In order to reach the darkroom, one had to enter a door leading from the hall corridor to the business manager's office, pass through that office, and enter a second door leading into the darkroom. The school had adopted a masterlock system with special keys unable to be duplicated by ordinary locksmiths.
An unlocked, wooden, four-drawer, filing cabinet was in the darkroom. Plaintiff testified that, as had his predecessors on the paper, he used one of the cabinet drawers to store his personal camera equipment. Plaintiff did not request or obtain permission from anyone connected with the defendant's administration to store his camera equipment in the darkroom or in the cabinet. Although the security director testified that it was normal practice for a student who wished to bring personal property on the premises to obtain permission from the security director's or comptroller's office, plaintiff made no such request. Plaintiff testified that he had utilized some of the stored equipment for activities unrelated to his duties as the paper's photographer and that some of the materials stored were for his own use.
Plaintiff testified that he locked the darkroom door at 10:30 p.m., Friday, October 29, 1971. When he returned to the room on the following Monday morning, he discovered his camera equipment missing.
Testimony was adduced concerning defendant's security measures used to safeguard its approximately seven thousand students and one hundred thirty to two hundred rooms. The defendant maintains security guards at the entrances to the building, with one guard patrolling the corridors. Late in the evening the guards lock the street doors and see to it that everyone is sent outside. After the guards leave, the 28 member cleaning staff acts as a security force. No one is ever permitted to remove property from the building without a written pass. Everyone associated with the school carries an identification card. Plaintiff characterized the security force as being composed of obese middleagers who were rarely observed outside the lobby of the building. Many thefts had occurred in the building. Plaintiff was aware that a theft had occurred in the business manager's office only a few weeks before the instant theft.
At the close of all the testimony the trial court found that a bailment relationship had existed between the plaintiff as bailor and defendant as bailee. In entering judgment for the plaintiff, the court implicitly found that the defendant had been negligent and had breached the bailment contract. The trial judge entered judgment for an amount less than that sought by plaintiff because he believed that not all of the camera equipment stored by plaintiff related to his duties as the school paper's photographer.
Before considering the issue of whether plaintiff established the existence of a bailment relationship between himself and the defendant, we note that the trial court did not specify whether it perceived the plaintiff as having acted in the capacity of student or employee. Although plaintiff appears to emphasize his status as a student rather than employee, we do not believe that an exact determination of his status is helpful or necessary in deciding the existence of a bailment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Miss. Valley Livestock, Inc.
...720, 723 (1980) (quoting Knapp, Stout & Co. v. McCaffrey, 178 Ill. 107, 52 N.E. 898 (1899)); see also Berglund v. Roosevelt Univ., 18 Ill.App.3d 842, 310 N.E.2d 773, 775 (1974) (“Bailment is defined as the rightful possession of goods by one who is not an owner.”). Although bailment takes m......
-
Longo Realty v. Menard, Inc.
...S.Ct. 49, 3 L.Ed.2d 68 (1958) ) created by an express contract or implication of law. Berglund v. Roosevelt University, 18 Ill.App.3d 842, 844, 310 N.E.2d 773 (1974). An implied-in-fact bailment depends on the surrounding facts, including benefits received by the parties, the parties' inten......
-
Waugh v. University of Hawaii
...to exercise that control are needed to show that one is in possession of the bailed goods." Berglund v. Roosevelt University, 18 Ill.App.3d 842, 844-45, 310 N.E.2d 773, 776 (1974). Thus, in order to have possession, physical control and an intent to exercise that control must be shown. In d......
-
Matei v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
...City Bank & Trust Co., 82 Ill.App.3d 1113, 38 Ill.Dec. 489, 492, 403 N.E.2d 720, 723 (1 Dist.1980); Berglund v. Roosevelt University, 18 Ill.App.3d 842, 310 N.E.2d 773, 775-76 (1 Dist.1974). The fact that the insurance company may have paid out under the policy despite the absence of a writ......
-
Fraudulent Transfers and Juries: Was Granfinanciera Rightly Decided?
...ruling X as a bailee is completely unacceptable. A bailment is rightful possession of property of another. Berglund v. Roosevelt Univ., 310 N.E.2d 773, 775 (111. App. 1974); see Restatement (First) of Trusts [section] 5 (Am. L. Inst. 1935) ("A bailment is not a trust"). The duty of a bailee......