Theobald v. Satterthwaite
| Decision Date | 11 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | 30355. |
| Citation | 30 Wn.2d 92,190 P.2d 714 |
| Parties | THEOBALD et ux. v. SATTERTHWAITE et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1
Rehearing Denied April 14, 1948.
Action by Everett Theobald and Mae Theobald, husband and wife against Guy Satterthwaite and Helen Satterthwaite, husband and wife, doing business as Crystal Palace Barber & Beauty Shop, for damages for loss of a fur coat. From the judgment defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; E. D. Hodge, Judge.
Henderson Carnahan & Thompson, and Henry C. Perkins, all of Tacoma, for appellants.
J Peter P. Healy, of Tacoma, for respondents.
From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendants appeal. Appellants Satterthwaite run a barber shop and beauty shop in the city of Tacoma under the name of the Crystal Palace Barber and Beauty Shop. It consists of a suite of three rooms, the back room being the barber shop, the middle room being the operating room of the beauty shop and the room facing the outside being a reception room.
No attendant was kept in the reception room and the interior of it was visible to outsiders through a glass door. Outsiders could not see into the operating room, nor could persons in the operating room see into the reception room. There was a sign in a conspicuous place in the shop which read: 'Not responsible for hats, coats and purses'.
The respondent Mae Theobald had patronized the beauty shop on a number of occasions previous to the day in question and knew the arrangement of the rooms. On a previous occasion she had inquired of appellant Helen Satterthwaite if the reception room was a safe place to leave her coat and had been assured that it was safe. Nothing had been stolen from the reception room in twenty years of operation and the hooks in that room were the only places provided for customers on which to hang their wraps. There was no bell or warning device on the door that sounded when it was opened. A thief could see into the reception room and if a garment hung there could open the door, take it off the hook and leave without being seen from the operating room.
On December 24, 1946 the respondent Mae Theobald came into the beauty shop by appointment to get a permanent wave. She sat in the reception room with her fur coat on until the appellant Helen Satterthwaite invited her into the operating room. Whereupon, she removed her coat as was natural and expected for the period while receiving her permanent wave. She hung it on a hook provided for wraps in the reception room. Neither of the appellants was aware that she had worn her fur coat on that day. When appellant Helen Satterthwaite had finished the work on respondent's hair, respondent went into the reception room to get her coat and found that it had been stolen. An alarm was given and the police were called but to no avail. She valued the coat at $300 for which amount the lower court gave her judgment upon the theory that the appellants were bailees of the coat and had been negligent in caring for it because of having furnished an unsafe place to leave it.
The appellants contend that they are not liable because there was no bailment. Respondent contends that there was a bailment and relies upon the rule in Bunnell v. Stern, 122 N.Y. 539, 25 N.E. 910, 911, 10 L.R.A. 481, 19 Am.St.Rep. 519. In that case a lady had gone to a clothing store to buy a cloak. In order to try on a new garment she took off her cloak and laid it down in the presence of store attendants some distance away from the mirror she used in her fitting. Of this the store employees had knowledge. After her fitting she returned for her coat and found it gone. The court said 'Under these circumstances we think that it became their duty to exercise some care for the plaintiff's cloak, because she had laid it aside upon their invitation, and with their knowledge, and, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Tug Boat Co. v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority, 33371
...there can be no delivery unless there is a change of possession of an article from one person to another.' Theobald v. Satterthwaite, 30 Wash.2d 92, 190 P.2d 714, 715, 1 A.L.R.2d 799. In 6 Am.Jur (Rev. ed.) 178, Bailments, § 4, defining bailments, it is said: '* * * it is the element of law......
-
In re Bryant, 37794-2-II
...goods until the buyer receives the goods and on nonmerchant sellers until they tender delivery of the goods); Theobald v. Satterthwaite, 30 Wn.2d 92, 95, 190 P.2d 714 (1948) (stating a duty of care falls on a bailee because he possesses the property and has custody and control over it). Whe......
-
In re Matter of Bryant v. Lopez, No. 37794-2-II (Wash. App. 1/26/2010), 37794-2-II.
...goods until the buyer receives the goods and on nonmerchant sellers until they tender delivery of the goods); Theobald v. Satterthwaite, 30 Wn.2d 92, 95, 190 P.2d 714 (1948) (stating a duty of care falls on a bailee because he possesses the property and has custody and control over it). Whe......
-
Eifler v. Shurgard Capital Management Corp.
......Boeing Co., 4 Wash.App. 705, 711, 483 P.2d 1282, 46 A.L.R.3d 1294 (1971)); see also Theobaldv. . Page 690 . Satterthwaite, 30 Wash.2d 92, 94, 190 P.2d 714 (1948). . In this case, a bailment was not created simply because Eifler left his car on Shurgard's ......