Bowen v. Isenberg Brothers Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1907
• Citation: 22 Del. 230,67 A. 152
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: WILKES BOWEN v. ISENBERG BROTHERS COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Delaware

67 A. 152

22 Del. 230

WILKES BOWEN v. ISENBERG BROTHERS COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Delaware

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

February 28, 1907

Superior Court, New Castle County, February Term, 1907.

ACTION ON THE CASE (No. 149, May Term, 1906), to recover damages to carpets placed by the plaintiff in the storage house of the defendant, said damages being alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of the defendant.

Verdict for defendant.

Horace G. Knowles for plaintiff.

Reuben Satterthwaite, Jr., for defendant.

LORE C. J., and PENNEWILL, J., sitting.

OPINION

LORE C. J., charging the jury:

Gentlemen of the jury:--Wilkes Bowen, the plaintiff in this case, has brought this action against the defendant, Isenberg Brothers Company, to recover damages for injuries which he alleges his carpets received through the negligence of the defendant company.

Plaintiff claims that about May 30th, 1905, he delivered to the defendant company a certain lot of carpets to be cleaned at their carpet cleaning establishment and to be by them stored and safely kept until delivered back again to the plaintiff; that said service was to be performed by the defendant for hire. The plaintiff further claims that the defendant so negligently conducted itself in respect to said carpets that they were greatly damaged and ruined.

The undisputed proof in this case establishes the relation of bailor and bailee between the plaintiff and the defendant. That is to say, the defendant became the bailee of the plaintiff of certain carpets to be by it cleaned and returned for hire. That relation imposed upon the defendant a certain duty, which was to take reasonable and proper care of the said carpets. And we will say to you that the care required was just such reasonable care as an ordinarily prudent man would take under like circumstances with respect to his own property. And if you find in this case that all through this transaction the defendant did take such reasonable and proper care as an ordinarily prudent man would take under like circumstances, then the plaintiff cannot recover.

We will say further that whenever a person holds himself out and engages in any business, occupation or work, the employer has a right to presume that such person possesses all the requisite knowledge and qualifications to properly discharge the duties thus assumed by him.

The defendant claims that...