Moore's Trucking Co. v. Gulf Tire & Supply Co.

Citation87 A.2d 441,18 N.J.Super. 467
Decision Date24 March 1952
Docket NumberNo. A--59,A--59
PartiesMOORE'S TRUCKING CO. v. GULF TIRE & SUPPLY CO.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

Bernard Shurkin, Newark, argued the cause for the appellant.

Joseph Halpern, Somerville, argued the cause for the respondent (George W. Allgair, Somerville, attorney).

Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and BIGELOW.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BIGELOW, J.A.D.

This is a negligence action presenting an interesting problem of law. The plaintiff, as its name implies, is engaged in the trucking business, operating a number of tractors and trailers. On July 15, 1948, its servants drew a loaded trailer into the defendant's Bound Brook warehouse, unhooked the tractor and drove it away. This was in accordance with the established procedure followed by the parties. In the usual course, the defendant's employees would have unloaded the trailer and notified plaintiff to send for it. But before the trailer was unloaded, fire broke out in the warehouse and consumed the trailer, as well as its contents. The plaintiff sued defendant for the value of the trailer, but after both parties had presented their evidence, the trial judge took the case from the jury and awarded judgment to the defendant.

Was there a bailment of the trailer, or what was the relation between the parties? The cases dealing with a chattel of one person which is left by him on the premises of another, indicate that there is a bailment if the latter is given primary control of the chattel for the time being. For example, there was considered to be a bailment of: jewelry checked with a swimming pool attendant, Carter v. Borough of Allenhurst, 100 N.J.L. 138, 125 A. 117, 34 A.L.R. 759 (E. & A.1924); diamonds delivered to a retail jeweler 'on memorandum,' for sale, Kittay v. Cordasco, 103 N.J.L. 156, 134 A. 667 (E. & A.1926); automobile placed in shop to be washed, McBride v. DeCozen Motor Co., 137 A. 558, 5 N.J.Misc. 552 (Sup.Ct.1927); airplane stored in a hangar, Hopper's, Inc., v. Red Bank Airport, Inc., 15 N.J.Super. 349, 83 A.2d 457 (App.Div.1951). But it is held that there was no bailment where the owner of the chattel retained control: coat of restaurant customer hung on hook near the counter where he lunched, Gilson v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 86 N.J.L. 446, 92 A. 59 (Sup.Ct.1914), affirmed 87 N.J.L. 690, 94 A. 1102 (E. & A.1915); automobile stored in a garage, but the car owner furnished with a key to the garage so that he might come and go with his car as he chose, Zucker v. Kenworthy Brothers, 130 N.J.L. 385, 33 A.2d 349 (Sup.Ct.1943); package placed in a locker at railroad station, the owner of the package taking the locker key, Marsh v. American Locker Co., 7 N.J.Super. 81, 72 A.2d 343, 19 A.L.R.2d 326 (App.Div. 1950), affirmed 6 N.J. 81, 77 A.2d 315 (1950). And see the parking lot cases where it is generally considered that the relation of bailor and bailee arises if the car keys are left in the car at the attendant's direction and if the car owner is given a check which he must surrender when he returns for the car. But the relation is one of licensee and licensor, or lessee and lessor, if the car owner retains control, Sandler v. Commonwealth Station Co., 307 Mass. 470, 30 N.E.2d 389, 131 A.L.R. 1170 (Mass.Sup.Jud.Ct. 1940), and annotation; Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Constantine, 114 Ohio St. 275, 58 N.E.2d 658 (Sup.Ct. 1944); Westchester Development Corp. v. Burkett, 38 A.2d 628 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App. 1944).

In the case before us, the trailer, without the tractor, would have been as difficult to move as a car without a key, and this is some indication that there was no bailment. Against that, we may readily infer the intention of the parties that the plaintiff should not remove the trailer, or otherwise disturb the possession of the defendant, until the latters servants had unloaded the trailer. And meanwhile, in the normal course, the warehouse with the trailer in it, would be locked up for the night when the day's work was done. Compare the safe deposit box situation where, by the great weight of authority the depositor, although he holds the key to the box, is considered a bailor and the safe deposit company, a bailee, for it controls access to the vault, 6 Am.Jur., Bailments, § 406 et seq. We incline to the view that defendant was given exclusive control of the trailer and there was a bailment. Or it may be that the facts and the inferences are not entirely clear and that the question of bailment was for the jury, under suitable instructions. At any rate, we must assume in favor of the plaintiff-appellant, as did the trial court, that there was a bailment.

Proof of the loss of the trailer while in the possession of the defendant as bailee, established a prima facie case for the plaintiff and put the bailee to its defense. The defendant was then required to show that it had exercised reasonable care, suited to the circumstances, and that the fire occurred and spread to the trailer despite such care and not because of the defendant's negligence. And yet the general burden rested with the plaintiff and never shifted. Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Erie R. Co., 103 N.J.L. 579, 137 A. 596 (Sup.Ct.1927); Hopper's, Inc., v. Red Bank Airport, Inc., supra.

The defendant proved that its warehouse was a new building of concrete and cinder blocks, planned for the storing and distribution of goods. The warehouse was kept in clean condition, swept twice daily; loose cartons, paper, or debris were not left lying around; goods were neatly stacked in rows. Fire extinguishers were kept on hand, available for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • World Express & Connection, Inc. v. Crocus Invs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 28 Agosto 2020
    ...of another "if the latter is given primary control of the chattel for the time being." Moore's Trucking Co. v. Gulf Tire & Supply Co., 18 N.J. Super. 467, 469-70, 87 A.2d 441 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.) (listing as examples of bailments: "jewelry checked with a swimming pool attendant; diam......
  • Rappaport v. Nichols
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 23 Noviembre 1959
    ...v. Davis, supra; cf. Carlo v. Okonite-Callender Cable Co., 3 N.J. 253, 264, 69 A.2d 734 (1949); Moore's Trucking Co. v. Gulf Tire & Supply Co., 18 N.J.Super. 467, 472, 87 A.2d 441 (App.Div.1952), certification denied 10 N.J. 22, 89 A.2d 306 (1952). The defendants contend that, assuming thei......
  • McGlynn v. Parking Authority of City of Newark
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 14 Julio 1981
    ...in restaurant parking lot, did not pay a parking fee or receive a ticket, and retained keys); Moore's Trucking Co. v. Gulf Tire & Supply Co., 18 N.J.Super. 467, 470-471, 87 A.2d 441 (App.Div.1952), certif. den. 10 N.J. 22, 89 A.2d 306 (1952) (bailment existed when trailer without tractor wa......
  • Carrino v. Novotny
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 1979
    ...A.2d 7 (1963); Carlo v. The Okonite-Callender Cable Co., 3 N.J. 253, 264, 69 A.2d 734 (1949); Moore's Trucking Co. v. Gulf Tire & Supply Co., 18 N.J.Super. 467, 472, 87 A.2d 441 (App.Div.1952). But the provisions of the ordinance must be "germane to the type of hazard involved in the defend......
  • 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