Quinn v. Milner, 111.

• Decision Date: 26 October 1943
• Docket Number: No. 111.,111.
• Citation: 34 A.2d 259
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals
• Parties: QUINN v. MILNER, to Use of HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO.

34 A.2d 259

QUINN

v.MILNER, to Use of HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO.

No. 111.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Oct. 26, 1943.

Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division.

Action by William Milner, to the use of Hartford Fire Insurance Company, against Garrett F. Quinn, to recover for damages to plaintiff's automobile which was stolen from defendant's parking lot.From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Modified and affirmed. in the office where such keys were usually kept and where it had presumably been placed by an employee of defendant, and took plaintiff's automobile.The one employee in charge did not see the automobile leave the lot because he was putting gasoline in another automobile at the time.Webster drove the automobile to Lynchburg, Virginia, where he was apprehended, and where the automobile was recovered in a damaged condition.He was later convicted of the crime.Plaintiff commenced the action below to recover his damages.

I.A finding for plaintiff was amply justified by the evidence.The decided cases recognize two principal classes of legal relationships in dealing with the present-day type of parking lot.The first is where an owner merely rents space in a parking lot, drives his automobile therein, locks it or not as he chooses and for all practical purposes retains control thereof.Such transactions have commonly been held to be that of a mere lease or license, because the owner has paid a fee only for the privilege of parking his automobile, without actual delivery to the parking lot operator and with no corresponding right to redelivery.¹

That, however, was not the relationship of these parties.This situation falls into a different legal classification.This plaintiff did more than merely rent space.He paid for the privilege of leaving his automobile with the defendant for safekeeping.No particular space was assigned to him; sometimes he drove his automobile to one of the spaces at the rear of the lot and sometimes he left it at the entrance, where attendants assumed control of it, parking it, and presumably moving it about to permit the entrance or exit of other automobiles on the lot.But he always left the key in the automobile, and possession and control were always that of the lot operator.The fact that he paid a fixed monthly fee instead of paying each time he used the lot did not alter the relationship.It was a bailment.

That being so, plaintiff was required initially to prove only the delivery of the automobile and defendant's failure to return it upon demand.That established a prima facie case.Medes v. Hornbach, 56 App.D.C. 13, 6 F.2d 711.Having made out such a prima facie case, the burden of proof was cast upon defendant to account for failure to redeliver and to prove that his conduct was consistent with due care.That is the rule in the Federal courts in cases of orthodox bailments.²It is also the rule in a majority of the states in parking lot and garage cases.³It has been described as a rule of necessity, for the owner can hardly be expected to known what happened to his automobile while it was in the care of a bailee.The bailee on the other hand would naturally and reasonably be expected to account for such loss or damage and to come forward with evidence to establish due care on his part and to show that the loss or damage occurred despite such due care.

We think the trial judge was justified in holding that defendant failed to sustain his burden.The record contains no evidence as to the size of the lot, the number of automobiles it could accommodate or the number actually there at the time of the theft.Nor does the record disclose the layout of the lot or what fences, barriers, or other enclosures surrounded it, or what provisions had been made for lighting the lot.Nor was there any evidence as to what steps were taken to protect ignition keys from theft.These are not the only elements in the case; but these, together with the fact that the...