Maynard v. James

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MALTBIE, J.
• Citation: Maynard v. James, 109 Conn. 365, 146 A. 614 (Conn. 1929)
• Decision Date: 13 June 1929
• Parties: MAYNARD v. JAMES ET AL.

146 A. 614

109 Conn. 365

MAYNARD v. JAMES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 13, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; John Richards Booth Judge.

Action by Warren L. Maynard against John James and others to recover damages to plaintiff's automobile, alleged to have been caused by the failure of defendants, as bailees for hire, to exercise ordinary care, brought to the superior court in New London county and tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. No error.

Charles V. James, Arthur M. Brown, and Virtume P A. Quinn, all of Norwich, for appellants.

Arthur F. Libby, of Norwich, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.

MALTBIE, J.

The defendants operate a garage in Norwich. The entrance to it consists of a covered driveway about 20 feet long, and after cars have been washed in the garage, it is the custom to leave them in this driveway to dry off. The plaintiff left his car in the garage to be washed. He was given by the foreman in charge of it a receipt, which he received but did not read, and which was as follows:

" Commercial Garage

Tel. 274.

Norwich Conn.

License No. Date Recd.

No. 8097.

This is a receipt for your and must be presented at office.

All property at owner's risk.

Not responsible for articles left loose in car."

Plaintiff's car was washed on the washstand inside the garage by a helper employed there, and when it was finished, the foreman in charge directed him to move it from the washstand and leave it in the driveway to dry. The helper did move the car into the driveway, but when a little later the foreman looked for him, he did not find him and did discover that the car was missing. Shortly thereafter he was informed that the car, driven by the helper, had been wrecked by being driven against a wall and telephone pole beside a street at a point about a mile from the garage. The helper had been seen driving it in the street some half mile from the garage at a speed of about 25 miles per hour, and again immediately before the accident, then operating it at a very high rate of speed. The trial court held the defendants liable for the damage to the car by the collision, and they have appealed.

The argument of the defendants is largely based upon the thesis that they are not liable for the negligence of the helper because at the time of the accident he was not acting within the scope of his employment. However that may be, their contention overlooks a clear breach of duty which fastens an unquestionable liability upon them. One of the bases of recovery stated in the complaint is that the defendants did not regard their undertaking to store and safely keep the car for the plaintiff, and the trial court states as one of its conclusions that they did not perform this obligation. When the plaintiff left the car in the garage, the defendants, as bailees for hire, assumed the obligation not only to use due care in the performance of the services required, but to keep it in their garage or other appropriate place ready for redelivery to the plaintiff when he should come for it. Bradley v. Cunningham, 61 Conn. 485, 496, 23 A. 932 (15 L.R.A. 679). The driving of the car out of the driveway into the street and its subsequent operation was a wholly unauthorized use which, had the defendants done it themselves, certainly would have constituted a clear breach of duty. " A bailee is liable in an action of tort for an injury to property bailed, occurring during a use of it by him, or by others with his consent, which was neither expressly nor impliedly authorized by the contract of bailment, even though such injury was the result of accident and not of negligence in the manner in which the property was used." Palmer v. Mayo, 80 Conn. 353, 356, 68 A. 369, 370 (15 L.R.A. [N. S.] 428, 125 Am.St.Rep. 123, 12 Ann.Cas. 691). This duty of the defendants was contractual in its nature; it required performance, and while no doubt they might delegate that performance to another for a breach of it, whether by themselves or by that other, they would be liable. McElligott v. Randolph, 61 Conn. 157, 161, 22 A. 1094 (29 Am.St.Rep. 181); Nichols v. Harvey Hubbell, Inc., 92 Conn. 611, 619, 103 A. 835 (19 A.L.R. 221); Evans v. Williams, 232 Ill.App. 439, 443; 2 Mechem, Agency (2d Ed.) § 1931 et seq.; Wood, Master and Servant (2d Ed.) p. 644.

The legal situation is so well summed up in Corbett v Smeraldo, 91 N.J.Law, 29, 30, 102 A. 889, that we quote at some length: " We think this case does not involve the question of the master's responsibility for the tortious acts of his servants. It involves rather the question of the master's liability for breach of his own contract. * * * What were the terms of the contract? Those terms are rarely expressed at length. Much must be left to implication and be determined in accordance with the business usages and the customs of the times. * * * The jury could hardly avoid the inference that the automobile was left with the defendant for storage in his garage. Storage involved keeping the automobile there and not permitting it to go out without the plaintiff's authority. If the defendant chose to entrust that duty to his night man, he was liable, not because the night man was negligent, but because the defendant himself had been guilty of a...