Compton v. Daniels, 12100

Decision Date02 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 12100,12100
Citation98 Idaho 915,575 P.2d 1303
PartiesKenneth COMPTON and Bill Waugh, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Donald F. DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

Howard I. Manweiler, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

David W. Cantrill, Boise, for plaintiffs-respondents.

DONALDSON, Justice.

The plaintiffs-respondents, Compton and Waugh, are the owners of a 1948 Luscombe Aircraft. The defendant-appellant, Daniels, had an arrangement with the owners whereby he could use the aircraft in return for giving flying lessons to Compton. Both the appellant and the respondents acknowledge this arrangement to be a bailment. 1 In February, 1974, Daniels (bailee) was using the aircraft to fly from Boise, Idaho to McCall, Idaho and enroute experienced engine difficulties. Daniels testified at trial that he attempted to eliminate the engine trouble, specifically the loss of the engine, RPMS, by following standard emergency procedures. These emergency measures consisted of applying carburetor heat, checking magnetos, switching fuel tanks, and richening the fuel mixture. These measures were unsuccessful and Daniels was forced to land the aircraft in an open field near Cascade, Idaho. As a result of the landing, the aircraft was totally destroyed.

Compton and Waugh (bailors) instituted this action to recover the value of the aircraft. The complaint alleged the emergency situation and landing and resultant damage to the aircraft were due to the bailee's negligence. Daniels answered the complaint denying negligence.

After a trial without a jury, the district court ruled for the bailors and awarded them a $2,700 judgment. The district court held that the bailors had failed to prove specific acts of negligence on the part of the bailee, but nevertheless awarded the bailors a judgment.

The district court, relying on authorities from other jurisdictions (Priester v. Judkins, 7 Ill.App.2d 414, 129 N.E.2d 583 (1955); Kamm v. Morgan, 157 So.2d 118 (La.Ct.App.1963); Sky Aviation Corporation v. Colt, 475 P.2d 301 (Wyo.1970)), held that a presumption of negligence is imposed on the bailee of an aircraft when an aircraft is delivered to the bailee in good condition and subsequently redelivered by the bailee in a damaged condition. The district court further held that Daniels, the bailee, had failed to rebut this presumption of negligence because he had failed to prove the actual cause of the emergency situation. Deciding the case on the question of burden of proof, the district court held that Daniels was liable for the damage to the aircraft because he had not satisfied his burden of proof.

Noting that the bailors had failed to prove specific acts of negligence, the district court said:

. . . Defendant (Daniels, the bailee) has failed himself to prove the actual cause of the emergency condition. Defendant attempted to prove the existence of malfunction of the engine by specific evidence of the existence of oil on the windshield and the break in the exhaust pipe and head bolt. However, it is more probable the head bolt damage and exhaust damage was occasioned by the crash. The existence of oil on the windshield prior to the crash has not been corroborated.

The matter must be decided on the burden of proof. . . . (emphasis ours)

The district court thereafter cited and relied on the above mentioned presumption and awarded the bailors a judgment.

The only issue presented for review is whether the district court correctly applied the presumption of negligence.

" When a bailor proves delivery of the property to the bailee in good condition and return in a damaged state . . . a presumption arises that the damage or loss was due to negligence or fault of the bailee." McCormick, Evidence, § 343 (2d ed. 1972), accord, 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2508. This rule has been adopted by numerous jurisdictions in bailment cases. See, e. g., Harris v. Deveau, 385 P.2d 283 (Alaska 1963); Barnes v. Western Aviation, Inc., 524 P.2d 642 (Colo.Ct.App.1974); Aetna Life and Casualty Company v. Stan-Craft Corporation, 159 Mont. 474, 499 P.2d 776 (1972); Alamo Airways, Inc. v. Benum, 78 Nev. 3384, 374 P.2d 684 (1962); Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Hubbard, 275 Or. 567, 551 P.2d 1288 (1976); Clack-Nomah Flying Club v. Sterling Aircraft, Inc., 17 Utah 2d 245, 408 P.2d 904 (1965); Chaloupka v. Cyr, 63 Wash.2d 463, 387 P.2d 740 (1964); Sky Aviation Corporation v. Colt, supra; Annot. Liability of Bailee of Airplane for Damage Thereto, 44 A.L.R.3d 862. Under the facts in this case, the district court correctly held that the bailors were entitled to the presumption of negligence on the part of the bailee. We disagree, however, with the district court as to the effect of this presumption.

The district court concluded that the bailee, Daniels, had failed to meet his burden of proof because he had failed to introduce satisfactory evidence to prove the actual cause of the emergency situation. The district court erred in this holding. The district court's decision placed a much heavier burden on the bailee than is contemplated by the rule upon which the district court was relying.

The presumption relied upon by the district court does not shift to the bailee the burden of persuasion or the risk of non-persuasion. The presumption only...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Cheney v. Palos Verdes Inv. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 15 Junio 1983
    ...freedom from negligence when they failed to return the bailed property (the animals which had died) to the owner. Compton v. Daniels, 98 Idaho 915, 575 P.2d 1303 (1978); Lowe v. Park Price Co., 95 Idaho 91, 503 P.2d 291 (1972). The trial judge, over the argument of Cheneys, agreed, and he i......
  • Dental v. Meridian Computer Ctr., Inc., 37931.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 5 Marzo 2012
    ...damage or loss was not caused by the bailee's own negligence, the bailor is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Compton v. Daniels, 98 Idaho 915, 917, 575 P.2d 1303, 1305 (1978). The court of appeals misconstrued Compton v. Daniels in holding that the burden then shifts from the bailee......
  • Bridge Tower Dental, P.A. v. Meridian Computer Ctr., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 5 Marzo 2012
    ...or loss was not caused by the bailee's own negligence, the bailor is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Compton v. Daniels, 98 Idaho 915, 917, 575 P.2d 1303, 1305 (1978). The court of appeals misconstrued Compton v. Daniels in holding that the burden then shifts from the bailee to the......
  • Ace Realty, Inc. v. Anderson, 14567
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • 18 Mayo 1984
    ...loss was caused by him. The Victors now contend that the Andersons held the Victors' hay crop as bailees. Relying on Compton v. Daniels, 98 Idaho 915, 575 P.2d 1303 (1978), the Victors submit that the showing of any losses of hay, which would not have occurred in the absence of negligence, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT