Buckey v. Indianhead Truck Line

• Decision Date: 15 June 1951
• Docket Number: 35453,Nos. 35452,s. 35452
• Citation: 48 N.W.2d 534,234 Minn. 379
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: BUCKEY v. INDIANHEAD TRUCK LINE, Inc.

Page 534

48 N.W.2d 534

234 Minn. 379

BUCKEY v. INDIANHEAD TRUCK LINE, Inc.

Nos. 35452, 35453.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 15, 1951.

Rehearing Denied July 23, 1951.

Syllabus by the Court.

When a plaintiff bailor has proved a bailment and damage to the bailed property, defendant bailee has the twofold burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing before the jury that his negligence did not cause the damage, and, if defendant does not attempt to assume these burdens, plaintiff is entitled to recover fully for the damage done; but where the agreement, under which a bailment is made, specifies that the bailor will carry adequate collision, fire, and theft insurance on a truck which is the subject of the bailment and that the bailee will carry liability, property damage, and cargo insurance, the agreement will be interpreted as giving each party the benefit of the other party's insurance, and the bailor will have no cause of action to recover from the bailee for that portion of the damage which results from a risk against which the bailor has agreed to carry adequate insurance. Since the damage which plaintiff suffered by losing the use of his truck while it was being repaired was not a loss against which he agreed to carry insurance, the trial court properly awarded damages on that basis.

Robins, Davis & Lyons, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Lewis L. Anderson, St. Paul, for respondent.

LORING, Chief Justice.

This appeal involves two actions brought by Amos J. Buckey to recover for property damage to his 1947 Reo truck-tractor (hereinafter referred to as the Reo truck) and for loss of its use during the time required for its repair. These actions arise out of two different accidents, which took place on November 6, 1947, and February 8, 1948, while plaintiff's truck was in the possession and under the control of defendant, Indianhead Truck Line, Inc., under the terms of a written contract between the parties. The cases were consolidated in the trial court and, by stipulation of the parties, were tried by the court without a jury. The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgments for plaintiff in amounts equal to the fair value of the use of the Reo truck during the periods when it was out of use for repairs, plus costs and disbursements. Plaintiff moved for amended findings and conclusions of law or a new trial in each case. The trial court entered orders amending the findings and conclusions of law in certain particulars not important here and otherwise denied plaintiff's motions. Judgments were entered for plaintiff as previously ordered, and plaintiff has appealed. Since the only difference in the two actions is in the names of defendant's employe-drivers, the dates of the accidents, the amount of the damage to plaintiff's Reo truck, and the time necessary for repairs after each accident, the record in only one of the cases has been printed on appeal.

Prior to June 20, 1947, plaintiff owned a 1947 Reo truck, and on that date he entered into a written agreement with defendant leasing the truck to defendant for use in its business as a motor carrier of gasoline, fuel oil, and petroleum products. The written agreement, under which the truck was leased to defendant, contained the following provision: '(6) Lessor will carry adequate fire, theft and collision insurance upon such vehicle. Lessee will carry all liability, property damage and cargo insurance.' ¹

In compliance with this provision, plaintiff covered his Reo truck with collision insurance by purchasing a policy from the Iowa Mutual Casualty Company. There is no finding as to the amount of such policy, the only evidence along this line being the contract provision which required Adequate insurance.

The following additional provisions of the written agreement show the general nature of the arrangement between the parties:

'(2) Lessor agrees for a period of six months from the date hereof to lease said equipment to the Lessee from time to time as required by the Lessee in its said business, for operation on the date or dates specified by Lessee for such trips and between such points as may be designated by Lessee.

'(3) Lessee agrees to pay to Lessor for the use of said equipment 70 per cent of the gross revenues received by Lessee from hauls made by said equipment less wages paid by Lessee to the driver and operator of such equipment. Rentals shall be paid Lessor at Lessee's place of business in the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, on the 1st and 15th days of each month.

'(4) Lessee's dispatcher will dispatch all equipment and Lessor will be responsible to see that the equipment is available at the place designated by said dispatcher. If because of a breakdown in the equipment a shipment is delayed for more than one hour, Lessor will assume any expenses that might be incurred by the Lessee to place the equipment in repair and the wages of the servant of the Lessee driving said equipment, said amounts to be deducted from the rentals herein provided for.

'(5) Lessor agrees to provide all license tags and Minnesota permit plates and to maintain the equipment so leased in good operating condition and to meet all requirements imposed upon the equipment by the Interstate Commerce Commission, or any other public utility commission, or other authority in any state, that is to say, that the equipment must be maintained in such condition with such safety devices as will meet the requirements imposed by proper authority. During the term of this lease, Lessor agrees to purchase all gas and oil used by such equipment and all tires needed or acquired for such equipment from the Lessee.'

The written agreement referred to herein--portions of which are quoted above--is a mimeographed form contract prepared and generally used by defendant.

On February 8, 1948, plaintiff's Reo truck was damaged while in the service of defendant. ² Plaintiff took possession of the truck near Chaska, Minnesota, and had it returned to St. Paul, where it was repaired at a cost of $1,329. Plaintiff paid this repair bill and was partly reimbursed by the Iowa Mutual Casualty Company, such reimbursement being in the full amount provided by the policy carried by plaintiff. No evidence was introduced to show the manner in which the accident which caused the damage occurred.

The trial court found that a reasonable time for the repair of the truck was five weeks following the date on which the truck was damaged and that the fair value of the loss of use for the five weeks it underwent repairs was $180.

The principal issue in these cases relates to the proper interpretation of paragraph No. 6 of the written rental agreement, under which plaintiff delivered his Reo truck to defendant. Defendant, the lessee, in effect contends that the clear purposes and meaning of paragraph No. 6 are that plaintiff was to carry collision, fire, and theft insurance upon the truck for the mutual benefit of both parties to the rental agreement and that defendant, the lessee, was to do likewise with reference to liability, property damage, and cargo insurance. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends (1) that to interpret paragraph No. 6 as depriving him of his right to recover from defendant for the full amount of the damage done his truck would have the effect of allowing defendant, a bailee, ³ to contract against liability for its own negligence; (2) that such a contract is invalid; and (3) that, even if contracts of this kind are not invalid, the provisions of paragraph No. 6 should not be interpreted as limiting or eliminating defendant's liability for damage resulting from its own negligence.

We think that plaintiff's first contention is clearly unsound; that the question raised by his second contention therefore need need not be decided in this case; and that his third contention presents the real problem for decision.

With respect to plaintiff's first contention, it does not follow that an agreement by a bailor to give a bailee the benefit of the bailor's insurance is equivalent to a contract freeing the bailee from responsibility for his own negligence. In such cases, the bailee is still held fully responsible for the consequences of his negligence, the only difference being that his liability is limited to the extent that the bailor is compensated by insurance carried in accordance with the agreement between the parties. We think it is amply clear that the trial court took this view in awarding damages in this case. The trial court awarded plaintiff damages for the loss of use of the Reo truck while it was being repaired. As the following discussion will demonstrate, this was entirely proper.

This court held in Zanker v. Cedar Flying Service, Inc. 214 Minn. 242, 244, 7 N.W.2d 775, 776, that: 'For some years the rule has been well established in this state that when a plaintiff has proved a bailment the defendant has the burden of establishing before the jury that defendant's negligence did not cause the loss of the property bailed. This is not merely the burden of going forward with the proof, but the burden of establishing due care on his part by a preponderance of the evidence.'

Since defendant made no attempt to assume the burden of disproving its own negligence in the present case, plaintiff was entitled to recover for the damage done to his truck while it was in defendant's possession, unless the provisions of paragraph No. 6 of the rental contract reduces defendant's liability by giving it the benefit of plaintiff's insurance.

However, it is plaintiff's contention that, even if defendant were entitled to the benefit of plaintiff's insurance, defendant has failed to sustain the burden of proving the extent of the insurance recovery. Plaintiff further points out that the trial court specifically found that he was only partly reimbursed for his loss by insurance.

With respect to these contentions, we go no further than to state that plaintif...