Buchanan v. Green, 5385

• Decision Date: 24 December 1951
• Docket Number: No. 5385,5385
• Citation: 238 P.2d 1107,73 Ariz. 159
• Parties: BUCHANAN v. GREEN et al.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 1107

238 P.2d 1107

73 Ariz. 159

BUCHANAN v. GREEN et al.

No. 5385.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Dec. 24, 1951.

Baker & Whitney, of Phoenix, for appellant.

Moore & Romley, and Wm. P. Mahoney, Jr., all of Phoenix, for appellees.

UDALL, Chief Justice.

This appeal involves a suit between the bailor (plaintiffs) and the bailee (defendant) on the alleged negligence of the defendant which resulted in the theft of the plaintiffs' automobile. It was tried before a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and assessed the damages at the cost of repairing the automobile plus an additional amount for the loss of use of the car. The sole question presented is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence as to the number of cars that had been missing from the defendant's parking lot during the previous year.

The material facts are as follows: Plaintiffs (appellees) are a partnership consisting of Keith Green and Richard Batchelor, d. b. a. B. & G. Sales Company. On October 20, 1948, they owned a 1941 model Chevrolet sedan and around 9 a. m. of that day, Mr. Green parked it with the defendant (appellant, H. R. Buchanan) and received a claim ticket. The defendant operates the Sun Juce Auto Park located at Washington and First streets in the city of Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. Green returned to the parking lot about 9:30 p. m. of the same day for the car, but found the lot was dark, no parking attendant on duty, and the car missing. He reported it to the police and two days later the car was found abandoned at Bumblebee, Yavapai county, Arizona, in a badly damaged condition.

During the cross-examination of the defendant, counsel asked a series of questions as to how many other cars had been missing from the lot during the year previous to October 20, 1948, to which the defendant over appropriate objection, finally answered 'three'. Plaintiffs contend that this line of questioning was admissible not on the issue of negligence but for the purpose of showing that defendant had notice or knowledge of the dangerous condition that existed prior to this occurrence. He relies upon the annotation in 128 A.L.R. 595 and the rule as stated in 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, section 304, as follows: 'Other Accidents and Injuries. * * * It is recognized in numerous cases that for certain purposes, at least, evidence of other similar accidents or injuries at or near the same place or by the use of the same appliance suffered by persons other than the plaintiff and in other and different times, not too remote in point of time from the particular occurrence, is admissible. Evidence of prior similar accidents, when admissible, is generally admissible for the following...