Wallinga v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 13 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 39195,39195 |
| Citation | 131 N.W.2d 216,269 Minn. 436 |
| Parties | Marie WALLINGA, Appellant, v. Harry JOHNSON and Yale Johnson dba Johnson Realty Company and the Commodore Hotel, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. When a guest leaves property with a hotel for safekeeping, a relationship of bailment is created, and in an action for loss of the property the burden of proving lack of negligence rests upon the hotel.
2. When bailed property is lost through robbery and the purpose of the bailment was to guard against theft, as a matter of law the robbery is not a superseding cause sufficient to insulate the bailee of the property from liability.
Ronald Patrick Smith, Monson, Murray, Paulet & Smith, St. Paul, for appellant.
Altman, Geraghty & Mulally, Kenneth M. Schadeck, St. Paul, for respondents.
This appeal concerns an action to recover the value of two diamond rings owned by plaintiff. They were delivered and accepted for safekeeping by the Commodore Hotel, operated by defendant partnership, and were subsequently taken from the hotel safe by robbery. Plaintiff had occupied an apartment in the hotel for some years. On July 9, 1960, having been confined in a hospital with a broken leg, she directed her son to take two rings from her apartment and deposit them with the hotel clerk for safekeeping. In accordance with customary practice in performing this service, the rings were exhibited to the clerk and placed in a sealed 'safety deposit envelope' used by the hotel for depositing valuables belonging to guests. A numbered stub attached to the envelope was signed by the clerk and plaintiff's son, and a 'depositor's check' containing the same number was detached from the signed stub and given to him. This 'depositor's check' was to be presented when the envelope and contents were called for, at which time the depositor was required to sign it so that the signatures could be compared. The envelope containing the rings was placed in a large safe located in the hotel's front office 4 or 5 feet behind the registration desk and about the same distance from the hotel switchboard. The safe was used not only to keep the valuables of guests, but also cash for use in the hotel's cafe, bar, and coffee shop. Although it was equipped with a combination lock, during the 16 years that defendants operated the hotel the safe door, while customarily closed, was never locked. A clerk was on duty at the registration desk at all times.
On July 10 at 3:45 a.m., two armed men surprised the night clerk then on duty, rifled cash drawers in the registration desk, and took the contents of the unlocked safe, including the envelope containing plaintiff's rings. The rings have not been recovered.
The question of defendants' liability was submitted to a jury upon the sole issue of whether defendants were negligent in failing to keep the rings safely locked up and, if they were, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the loss. The jury returned a verdict for defendants, and plaintiff appeals from an order denying her motion for a new trial.
The primary question presented is whether the court erred in refusing to hold as a matter of law that the relationship between plaintiff and defendants was that of bailor and bailee.
Bailment is the legal relation arising upon delivery of goods without transference of ownership under an express or implied agreement that the goods be returned. 1 The actions of plaintiff's son and the hotel clerk--inserting the rings in the safety deposit envelope, signing the numbered stub, detaching the companion presentation stub, and placing the envelope in the safe--plainly indicate that the parties intended the rings to be kept for safekeeping until called for. This was a bailment as a matter of law.
The error at trial lay in assuming that Asseltyne v. Fay Hotel, 222 Minn. 91, 23 N.W.2d 357, applied to the facts of this case. In that case, the plaintiff was a residential guest of the defendant hotel. Her personal property, located in her rented room, was destroyed by fire. The pivotal issue was whether plaintiff's relationship to the hotel was that of a residential lodger or a transient guest. Unlike this case, the owner did not surrender exclusive possession and control of the property to the hotel. Thus, a bailment was not created and the case is inapplicable. We agree with plaintiff that Peet v. Roth Hotel Co., 191 Minn. 151, 253 N.W. 546, controls. There, plaintiff, who had no relationship to the hotel, left a ring with the hotel clerk for the purpose of delivering it to a jeweler, a guest of the hotel. We held that a bailment was established as a matter of law.
Application of the Asseltyne case and the court's refusal to find a bailment resulted in its erroneously instructing the jury that plaintiff bore the burden of proving defendants' negligence. Since Rustad v. G.N. Ry. Co., 122 Minn. 453, 142 N.W. 727, the rule in Minnesota has been that where the plaintiff has shown a bailment relationship to exist, the defendant must assume not only the burden of going forward with evidence to show lack of negligence but also the burden of ultimate persuasion. 2
The record reveals that plaintiff's proof was not wholly consistent with her theory that defendants' liability was governed by the law of bailment. In addition to proving delivery and nonreturn of the rings, she went forward with evidence tending to establish defendants' negligence. Contrary to defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of St. Paul v. Myles
...relieving a hotel operator of liability for loss of rings which a guest had bailed for safekeeping against theft. Wallinga v. Johnson, 269 Minn. 436, 131 N.W.2d 216 (1964). Undoubtedly, where the city impounds a vehicle, a bailment is created for the vehicle and all its contents. A robbery ......
-
Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc., s. C6-89-2301
...of goods without transference of ownership under an express or implied agreement that the goods be returned." Wallinga v. Johnson, 269 Minn. 436, 438, 131 N.W.2d 216, 218 (1964). Once a prima facie bailment has been established, a bailee (i.e., LPC) has the burden of going forward with evid......
-
Low v. Park Price Co.
...Great Northern Ry. Co., 122 Minn. 453, 142 N.W. 727, 728 (1913) (followed consistently in Minnesota; see, e. g., Wallinga v. Johnson, 269 Minn. 436, 131 N.W.2d 216, 219 (1964)). 'The view of the courts supporting the minority rule is that the bailee, being in exclusive possession of the cha......
-
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., No. A03-1456.
...without transferal of ownership, under an express or implied agreement that the goods will be returned. Wallinga v. Johnson, 269 Minn. 436, 438, 131 N.W.2d 216, 218 (1964). When grain is deposited in a grain bank, a bailment is created that gives rise to the grain bank's duty of care in kee......