Schulze v. Allison
| Decision Date | 26 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 33913,33913 |
| Parties | SCHULZE v. ALLISON. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The operator of a parking lot as bailee for hire for the parking of automobiles for customers must exercise ordinary care to return bailed property in as good condition as when received.
2. Where, as a result of the negligence or failure to use ordinary care by a bailee for hire the property bailed is stolen, such 'negligence,' or 'failure to use ordinary care' is the proximate cause of damage to the property while in the hands of the thief.
3. In an action at law, where a jury is waived, the judgment of the trial court, in the absence of prejudicial error, will be sustained by this court if there is any competent evidence tending to support it. Record examined and held, evidence sustains the judgment.
Dudley, Duvall & Dudley, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
Grigsby & Eberle, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by plaintiff, M. F. Allison, against the defendants, James E. Schulze and Madeline Schulze, d/b/a Terminal Auto Park, for damages to plaintiff's automobile.
The parties herein will be referred to hereafter as they appeared in the trial court.
The plaintiff alleged in his petition that he parked his 1937 model LaSalle 4-door sedan automobile in the parking lot of defendants at 308 West Grand Avenue in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, at about 7:57 p.m. May 16, 1947, for a consideration, and that he returned for the automobile about 10:40 p.m.; that the car was not found by the attendant of the parking lot who was the agent and employee of defendants, but was later found about 11:00 p.m. in another part of the city in a damaged condition; that the damage to the automobile was $400.00, and that it cost $16.00 towage to bring it in, and plaintiff prayed judgment against the defendants for $416.00.
The defendants filed an answer admitting that plaintiff parked his automobile in their parking lot; that it was not found upon plaintiff's return for it, but was later found in a damaged condition in another part of the city. Defendants further alleged that they maintained and operated their parking lot in the usual and customary manner, and that they maintained competent employees to park the automobiles; that reasonable precautions were taken to enclose their parking lot, and that their agents and employees maintained reasonable watch and control over the cars placed there; that they conducted the parking lot in a careful and prudent manner and were not guilty of any negligence, and therefore not liable to plaintiff for the damage to his automobile. The defendants further alleged that the automobile was stolen by some means unknown to them, and that it was damaged by the sole negligence of the persons who stole the automobile, which persons were alone liable to plaintiff for the damage.
A jury was waived, and the case was tried to the court. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff for $416.00 and costs. From this judgment the defendants appeal.
The defendants contend generally that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment. The defendants admit that the transaction constituted a bailment for hire, but contend that they are liable only for negligence or failure to use ordinary care in preserving the bailed property and to return it in as good condition as when received. 15 O.S.A. secs. 465 and 466.
It is the duty of the bailee in a contract of bailment for hire to exercise due care to prevent loss of or damage to the bailed property, and for failure to exercise such care the bailee is liable for any resulting loss or damage. Where the bailee fails to redeliver the property upon a legal demand therefor, a right of action accrues in favor of the bailor. It is generally recognized under such circumstances that the bailor may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roadway Exp. v. Gordon
...by competent evidence what caused the damage, and that same did not arise from failure to exercise due care. See Schulze v. Allison, 204 Okl. 147, 227 P.2d 658. This argument, of necessity, is founded upon the interpretation defendant places upon the evidence, and by such interpretation con......
-
Metcalf v. Bingaman, 35768
...plaintiff tendered no requested instructions and no special instructions were given as to the duties of a bailee. Under Schulze v. Allison, 204 Okl. 147, 227 P.2d 658, an authority cited by the plaintiff, a bailee is only required to exercise due care to prevent loss of, or damage to bailed......
- Cox v. Freeman
-
Meyer v. Moore
...care in safeguarding the plaintiffs' airplane during the time it was stored at the airport. 15 O.S.1951 Section 466; Schulze v. Allison, 204 Okl. 147, 227 P.2d 658, 660, Parkade Corp. v. Chehock, Okl., 312 P.2d 932, hold: 'The operator of a public parking lot as bailee for hire for the park......
-
A Duty to Safeguard: Data Breach Litigation Through a Quasi-bailment Lens
...bailor's car against theft because parking lot was not attended by an adequate and prudent number of employees."); Schulze v. Allison, 204 Okla. 147, 227 P.2d 658 (1950) ("[F]inding that bailee failed to use reasonable care to protect bailed vehicle from theft where single attendant on duty......