Johnson v. Willey

Decision Date02 May 1960
Docket NumberNo. 18852,18852
Citation142 Colo. 512,351 P.2d 840
PartiesJoe S. JOHNSON, d.b.a. Johnson's Corner, Plaintiff in Error, v. John WILLEY, Defendant in Error.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Clay R. Apple, Greeley, for plaintiff in error.

Myron H. Burnett, Denver, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

We will refer to the parties by name. John Willey was the plaintiff in the trial court, wherein he brought suit against Johnson for fire damage to his truck-tractor and trailer.

Willey in his complaint alleged that his equipment came into the possession of Johnson through one of Johnson's agents, an employee, 'by reason of a bailment for hire.' On the trial the evidence was that the bailment was for the benefit of the bailee. Since in law the duty to return bailed property in an undamaged condition is the same whether the bailment is for hire or for the benefit of the bailee, this discrepancy between proof and allegation is not important.

The facts are not complicated. At the close of the plaintiff's case, defendant moved to dismiss the action, which was denied. The defendant declined to proceed and elected to stand on his motion to dismiss and to bring this writ of error on that point. Therefore the evidence of the plaintiff stands admitted under such circumstances.

Willey was shipping a load of cattle to Denver. His truck was being driven by an employee, Siegfried. The driver stopped at Johnson's place of business, familiarly known as Johnson's Corner Service Station, located in Larimer County. The trial judge, a long time resident of the county, took judicial notice of the fact that this particular establishment is a well known truck stop. The driver Siegfried had been there on one other occasion, and had experienced and observed the procedure in servicing the trucks. He testified it was similar on both occasions. On the day that the fire occurred, Siegfried drove into the service station, and, observing that there were other vehicles adjacent to the gasoline pumps and that he would not be able immediately to take on fuel, he parked his truck in an open area about 75 feet from the gas pumps. He testified that he shut off the motor, put the truck in gear and put on the hand brake; that he then went into the restaurant, also operated by the defendant Johnson, to wash up and to eat. He said he expected that while he was inside for supper his truck would be moved to the fuel pump by the service station attendant and his tank filled, just as it had been done on the previous occasion.

While the driver was in the washroom, the truck was driven by one of Johnson's employees and moved up to the pump. Its presence alongside the pump was observed by the driver as he emerged from the washroom and went into the restaurant to eat. Just as he sat down and was ordering, someone...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Foster v. Bd. of Governors of the Colo. State Univ. Sys.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • February 27, 2014
    ...the bailor's property, i.e., that which a person of common prudence would use under the circumstances.”); Johnson v. Willey, 142 Colo. 512, 513, 351 P.2d 840, 841 (1960) (a bailee has a “duty to return bailed property in an undamaged condition”); see also 19 Williston on Contracts § 53:11, ......
  • Christensen v. Hoover, 80SC46
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1982
    ...has been accomplished or when the bailor reclaims the property. Mayer v. Sampson, 157 Colo. 278, 402 P.2d 185 (1965); Johnson v. Willey, 142 Colo. 512, 351 P.2d 840 (1960); Lewis v. People, 114 Colo. 411, 166 P.2d 150 (1946). While the delivery of property may be constructive by simply taki......
  • Kirby v. Chicago City Bank and Trust Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 9, 1980
    ...station proprietor obtained patronage for fuel and restaurant facilities after accepting control of a parked truck (Johnson v. Willey (1960), 142 Colo. 512, 351 P.2d 840). Additional cases cited by the plaintiff held that bailments for mutual benefit arose when the bailee accepted the bailo......
  • Rothman v. Butin
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1960

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