Nissho Iwai American Corp. v. New England Warehousing & Distribution, Inc.
Decision Date | 31 December 1986 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 85-3164-C. |
Citation | 650 F. Supp. 147 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Parties | NISSHO IWAI AMERICAN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. NEW ENGLAND WAREHOUSING & DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendant. |
Bertram E. Snyder, Looney & Grossman, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Frank P. Conrad, Howard P. Speicher, Davis, Malm and D'Agostine, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
This is a civil action in which the plaintiff, Nissho Iwai American Corporation ("Nissho") seeks to recover for the loss of 75 pallets of nails that were delivered for storage and safekeeping to the defendant, New England Warehousing & Distribution, Inc. ("New England Warehousing"). Plaintiff claims that the loss of the nails was due solely to the negligence of the defendant. Jurisdiction is based on diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
In the present case defendant has alleged, and supported with an affidavit, that the defendant used certain security systems and procedures, that defendant's employees guarded the storage facility, and that defendant's employees used reasonable procedures in transferring property between defendant's storage facilities. Although the defendant's offer of proof of due care is thin, it is sufficient to raise a question of fact for the jury, i.e. whether defendant has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it exercised due care with respect to the plaintiff's property and thus the loss was not attributable to defendant's negligence. Knowles, 362 Mass. at 652, 289 N.E.2d 879. See also The Clark-Aiken Company v. Cromwell-Wright Company, Inc., 367 Mass. 70, 77 n. 6, 323 N.E.2d 876 (1975) ( ).
Plaintiff argues that the defendant must offer facts which, if believed, will explain the circumstances of the loss of the goods. This is a correct statement of a bailee's burden of production under Bean v. Security Fur Storage Warehouse, Inc., 344 Mass. 674, 184 N.E.2d 64 (1962) after the bailor establishes a prima facie case of negligent loss of bailed goods. Bean, however, is old law. Knowles changed the law of bailments: the presumption created by the prima facie case irrevocably fixes the burden of proof upon the bailee to prove "that he has exercised due care to prevent the property's loss or destruction." Knowles, 362 Mass. at 652, 289 N.E.2d 879 (emphasis added). See also M.G.L. c. 106, § 7-204. Defendant must produce sufficient evidence of due care — not necessarily an explanation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Orient Overseas v. John T. Clark & Sons of Boston
...changed preexisting law, which imposed only a burden of production on the bailee, see Nissho Iwai American Corp. v. New England Warehousing & Distribution, Inc., 650 F.Supp. 147, 148 (D.Mass.1986) (discussing how Knowles changed preexisting law), and placed the burden of proof on the bailee......
-
Rogers v. Clipper Cruise Lines, Inc.
... ... Prods., Inc. v. Emde Corp, 496 F.Supp. 1242 (D.Colo.1980). On the other ... American Land Program, Inc. v. Bonaventura Vitgevers ... ...