Taylor v. Philadelphia Parking Authority

• Decision Date: 30 December 1959
• Citation: 398 Pa. 9,156 A.2d 525
• Parties: Martin A. TAYLOR and Sarah Taylor, Individually and Trading as Martin A. Taylor Company, Appellants, v. PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY and Ralph Cohn, Additional Defendant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

156 A.2d 525

398 Pa. 9

Martin A. TAYLOR and Sarah Taylor, Individually and Trading

as Martin A. Taylor Company, Appellants, v. PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY and Ralph Cohn, Additional Defendant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

December 30, 1959.

Lionel B. Gumnit, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Leonard J. Cook, Shapiro, Rosenfeld, Stalberg & Cook, Harold Cramer Philadelphia, for appellee.

Leo H. Loffel, Philadelphia, for additional defendant.

Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and BELL, MUSMANNO, BENJAMIN R JONES, COHEN, BOK and McBRIDE, JJ.

McBRIDE, Justice.

Plaintiffs brought suit in assumpit against the defendant, Philadelphia Parking Authority, alleging inter alia that they were regular monthly parkers at a garage operated by defendant in Philadelphia; that defendants had been informed that in their business the cars of plaintiffs carried valuable jewelry samples and that such cars were equipped with burglar alarms that plaintiffs were to park their cars in the garage and lock them retaining control of the keys thereto at all times. On or about March 8, 1957, one of plaintiffs' cars was placed in defendatn's garage and locked as usual. The complaint goes on to aver that this car contained approximately $8,000 worth of samples of various types of jewelry; that on or about March 19, 1957 the car was missing from the garage and was reported to the police as stolen. On March 23, 1957 the car was found but the jewelry was missing. It is plaintiffs' contention that the defendant violated a bailment contract in failing to return the automobile and its contents and sought judgment. Defendant's answer denied the material averments of plaintiffs' complaint. ^[1] The case was tried by the court without a jury and at the conclusion of plaintiffs' case, defendant moved for a non-suit on the ground that there was no bailor-bailee relationship but instead, a lease of parking privileges and consequently there was no liability for loss by theft in the absence of proof of culpable negligence on its part. See Moss v. Bailey Sales & Service, Inc., 385 Pa. 547, 123 A.2d 425. The trial court entered a compulsory non-suit which was affirmed by the court en banc. This appeal followed.

This is a case of first impression before the appellate courts of Pennsylvania. For all practical purposes it could be considered as a case stated because there is very little, if any, dispute as to the facts. The only dispute is with regard to the legal consequences of those facts. ^[2] The parties repeat their respective contentions here.

In order to fix liability upon the proprietors of an automobile parking place, it is necessary to ascertain if there is such a delivery of or assumption of control of the automobile entrusted to him as to create a bailment. One who merely leases automobile parking privileges is not the bailee of the parked car and consequently is under no duty to guard against loss by theft. 4 Williston on Contracts (Rev. Ed.) 2960, § 1065a.

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 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. The second is where the garage attendants collect fees, assume control of cars, park them and move them about within the garage as they find convenient, the keys are left in the cars and tickets are issued as means of identifying cars upon redelivery. The first class of cases has almost universally been held to be that of a mere lease of parking privileges because the owner has paid a fee only for the privilege of parking his automobile without any actual delivery to the parking lot operator and with no corresponding right to redelivery. See Suits v. Electric Park Amusement Company, 213 Mo.App. 275, 249 S.W. 656; Lord v. Oklahoma State Fair Association, 95 Okl. 294, 219 P. 713; and the extensive annotation in 131 A.L.R. 1175.

The second class of cases has been held to constitute a bailment and the lot owner held responsible for loss of the car or...