Ramsden v. Grimshaw
| Decision Date | 22 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | 29666. |
| Citation | 162 P.2d 901,23 Wn.2d 864 |
| Parties | RAMSDEN v. GRIMSHAW et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1945.
Department 1.
Action by W. S. Ramsden against William Grimshaw and wife for damages resulting from named defendant's alleged negligence, as bailee of plaintiff's automobile, in permitting theft thereof from defendant's parking lot. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Reversed with instructions.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Matthew M. Hill, judge.
Wright & Wright, of Seattle, for appellants.
Leon L Wolfstone, of Seattle, for respondent.
The defendant operates an open-air parking lot, located on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Stewart Street in the city of Seattle. The north side of the lot is bounded by a tall building. At the west end of the lot there is an alley where a fence guards cars from dropping into the lot, but there is a driveway out. The south and east sides are bounded by sidewalks. Both are unfenced and will permit the exit of cars. There are driveway approaches leading into the parking lot from the east.
The parking lot was in charge of an attendant whose competency is admitted. The plaintiff paid twenty-five cents, received a claim check, and left his car with the keys in it to be parked by the attendant at about 7:30 p.m. He had parked there Before .
The claim check had printed on it:
The attendant, following the known custom, parked the car and left the keys in it. This custom increases the capacity of the lot and adds to the convenience of the customer by permitting cars to be moved out of each other's way to leave the lot.
About 9:30 p.m., some two hours after the car was left, two sailors entered this parking lot while the attendant was parking another car about fifty feet to the west. The attendant observed them but had no idea at that time that they intended to steal a car. He testified that he though that they had come on to the back of the lot to relieve themselves. As soon as he parked the car he went down toward where these sailors had gone in the back part of the lot, and observing them in the plaintiff's car and starting to drive the car out, he broke into a run and 'hollered' at them to stop. He had approached to within eight or ten feet from them when the sailors drove the car out with 'gears grinding, motor racing.' and proceeded to run through a red light. They travelled about six miles at a high rate of speed, crashing into another car in the Ballard district. Both cars were wrecked. One of the sailors got away; the other was overtaken by the police who had been notified by the attendant immediately after the theft.
Plaintiff brought his action as bailor against a paid bailee for damages resulting from the negligence of the bailee. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
As to the effect of the limitation of liability printed on the claim check, the rule is that one cannot contract away responsibility for one's own negligence or fraud. Patterson v. Wenatchee Canning Co., 59 Wash. 556 110 P. 379; Sporsem v. First National Bank of Poulsbo, 133 Wash. 199, 233 P. 641, 40 A.L.R. 854 (also noted in 133 A.L.R. 198); Baione v. Heavey, 103 Pa.Super. 529, 158 A. 181; 6 Am.Jur., § 270, p. 350.
The rule on bailment for hire in such a case as the instant one is that a prima facie case of negligence is made out when the bailee is unable to deliver the bailed article. But if the bailee shows the theft of the bailed article under circumstances that do not indicate the negligence of the bailee, the prima facie case fails and the bailor must go forward with proof that the theft resulted from negligence, that is to say from the want of due care of the bailee. See 3 R.C.L. sec. 74, 151, cited in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pacific Transfer Co., 120 Wash. 665, 208 P. 55, 26 A.L.R. 217.
See also Colburn v. Washington State Art Association, 80 Wash. 662, 141 P. 1153; Goodwin v. Georgian Hotel Co., 197 Wash. 173, 84 P.2d 681, 119 A.L.R. 788; and Rubinstein v. Washington Cold Storage Co., 18 Wash.2d 238, 138 P.2d 852.
'As applied to bailments, ordinary care means care as ordinary prudent men, as a class, would exercise in caring for their own property under like circumstances, * * *.' 6 Am.Jur., § 249, p. 336.
See also Sporsem v. First...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Nursery Products, Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards
...Althoff v. System Garages, Inc., supra at 864, 371 P.2d 48 [797 P.2d 486] (preprinted form used by a garageman); Ramsden v. Grimshaw, 23 Wash.2d 864, 866, 162 P.2d 901 (1945) (preprinted form used by a garageman); Sporsem v. First Nat'l Bank, 133 Wash. 199, 233 P. 641 (1925) (preprinted for......
-
Chaloupka v. Cyr
...care under the circumstances; the bailee is not an insurer. Jones v. Warner, 57 Wash.2d 647, 359 P.2d 160 (1961); Ramsden v. Grimshaw, 23 Wash.2d 864, 162 P.2d 901 (1945); Burley v. Hurley-Mason Co., 111 Wash. 415, 191 P. 630 (1920); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lilly Co., 48 Wash.2d ......
-
American Tug Boat Co. v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority, 33371
...the bailment, regardless of whether or not such possession is based on contract in the ordinary sense.' See, also, Ramsden v. Grimshaw, 23 Wash.2d 864, 162 P.2d 901; Spare v. Belroy Housing Corp., 179 Wash. 385, 38 P.2d 207; Hadley Warehouse Co. v. Broughton, 126 Wash. 356, 218 P. 257. Case......
-
Collins v. Boeing Co., 573--41110--I
...251, 197 N.E. 16 (1935); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments, §§ 55 & 57 (1963); Annot., 1 A.L.R. 394, § 1(a) (1919). See also Ramsden v. Grimshaw, 23 Wash.2d 864, 162 P.2d 901 (1945). Resort to the concept of constructive or involuntary bailment on which to base a duty of care is unnecessary here. There......