Hartley v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 29 January 1949
• Docket Number: No. 32283.,32283.
• Citation: 51 S.E.2d. 617
• Parties: HARTLEY. v. ROBINSON et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

51 S.E.2d. 617

HARTLEY.

v.ROBINSON et al.

No. 32283.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Jan. 29, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1949.

Syllabus by the Court.

The evidence did not show a contract of bailment and the court did not err in directing the verdict for the defendant.

Error from Civil Court of Fulton County; Robert Carpenter, Judge.

Action by C. A. Hartley against W. J. Robinson and H. A. Stephens, doing business as Robinson & Stephens Garage, for loss of plaintiff's automobile which had been parked in defendants' parking lot. To review an adverse judgment, plaintiff brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith, Partridge, Field, Doremus & Rin-gel and Ogden Doremus, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

McLennan & Cook and Dudley Cook, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

PARKER, Judge.

C. A. Hartley sued W. J. Robinson and H. A. Stephens, doing business as Robinson & Stephens Garage, alleging that the defendants operated garages and parking lots for automobiles and were indebted to him for the loss of his car left in the defendants' parking lot; that he was a' regular customer of the defendants' parking lot and paid them a monthly fee for said parking; that the defendants were bailees for hire and as such failed to exercise ordinary care in looking after said car, and the loss of said car was due solely to the negligenceof said defendants in failing to properly care for said car while parked with them for a consideration, and in permitting said car to be taken and carried away from their parking lot in open daylight and during parking hours on said lot. The defendants answered by making a general denial of the plaintiff's allegations.

The uncontradicted evidence showed that the plaintiff was the owner of an automobile of the value alleged in his petition, that it was parked on the lot of the defendants under an arrangement with them whereby the plaintiff paid $4 per month for the privilege of parking on the lot, that he was not required to leave his keys in the car unless he left it in the middle of the lot or driveway, that the plaintiff did not have any particular space assigned to him, but could use any place that he could drive in, that when he did not have to park in the middle and leave his keys in the car, he drove into a space and parked, that on the date alleged he took his car out during the morning after having parked on the lot and brought it back around 12 o'clock, and parked it on the northwest corner of the lot, and that when he returned later in the day for the car it was gone. There was no attendant on the lot and nobody gave the plaintiff any claim check. The plaintiff customarily locked his car, practically all of the time, but on this particular occasion he didn't take his keys out because he was just absent minded and in a hurry. He knew that the defendants did not have an attendant on the lot.

While the evidence is somewhat vague on the matter, it appears that the defendants had another parking lot close by and across the street from and not connected with the lot in question, except that attendants from the other lot might be called at times to move cars parked in the middle or driveway of the lot in question so that cars which were blocked could be gotten out.

"A bailment is a delivery of goods or property for the execution of a special object, beneficial either to the bailor or bailee, or both; and upon a contract, express or...