Bailment

Question 1

Gobeil v Elliot Facts

Answer 1

• Elliot own and operate a farm in Paddockwood with large farm machinery
• There was a fire in the barn, which is where G stores his combine
• G did not ask E to take care of his combine, but thought the barn would be a safe place to store it out of the weather
• G sues E for negligence
• Argued that E was meant to take care of it
• E argues it was a licence to park not a bailment

Question 2

Gobeil Issue

Answer 2

was there a bailment or a licence

Question 3

Gobeil Holding

Answer 3

• The arrangement was a contract of bailment, bailee has a duty of care
• On the issue of negligence: there was no prima facie case of negligence
• Onus would have been on E if he had to disprove negligence
• Found that Elliots are bailees for reward

Question 4

Gobeil Reasoning

Answer 4

• Since there was a bailment, G was entitled to a duty of care, but this was not breached by the fire
• Court relies on Heffron v Imperial Parking Co et al for definitions of bailment and licence
• Threshold for negligence is balance of probabilities
• No one knows how this fire started
• It is possible it started by a variety of electrical issue
• On this evidence, it was established that E disproved negligence
• Insurance of the goods was not discussed
• Bailment does not require insurance

Question 5

Gobeil Ratio

Answer 5

Test for Re Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) negligence
- Loss occurs under care of defendant
- Would not have happened without negligence
- Must be no evidence as to why or how occurrence took place:
- Can’t know how the loss happened, but they have to know that the bailor was negligent
- Is it from a spontaneous event or does it relate directly to negligent
- There cannot be both for this doctrine to be satisfied,

Question 6

Mason v Westside Cemeteries Facts

Answer 6

• Plaintiff’s mother and father died four years apart and both were cremated and the urns held at the funeral home
• The FH contacted him 5 years later to retrieve the ashes
• When they explained the options, he instructed the FH to transfer the Westminster cemeteries
• The FH contacted Westside to arrange transport of the urns. The plaintiff paid the burial cremated remains of his parents to the funeral home
• 14 years later he was looking for the ashes after he retired, and they said they had no record of it, and an exhaustive search was launched and he sued the cemetery for breach of bailment
• Cemeteries and FH were both bailees
• FH fulfilled their bailee obligations in transferring the urns

Question 7

Mason Issues

Answer 7

is the cemetery liable for bailment breach or negligence

Question 8

Mason Holding

Answer 8

WC is liable for a breach of bailment

Question 9

Mason Reasoning

Answer 9

• WC became a sub-bailee when the urns were transferred there
• Onus was on the WC to prove they did everything right
• WC was liable for damages unless they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to care for the ashes
• The ashes were delivered but someone made a mistake and they were lost along the way
• There was also negligence by WC because they lost the urns
• Damages:
• 50+ interest
• 2 for market value of ashes
• 1000 for emotional distress

Question 10

Gaudreau v Belter Facts

Answer 10

• D was storing a set of golf clubs for the P following their golf trip
• The clubs were stolen when the garage door was left open
• It was a gratuitous bailment

Question 11

Gaudreau Issues

Answer 11

was there a bailment
- did belter take all reasonable steps to execute the bailment

Question 12

Gaudreau Holding

Answer 12

• Appeal dismissed
• The old categories of bailment were no longer relevant to establishing the standard of care owed by bailees. While the old cases had held that a gratuitous bailee would be liable only for gross negligence, this case improved upon this

Question 13

Gaudreau Reasoning

Answer 13

• By leaving the garage door open, then B did not take all reasonable steps to execute the bailment and then is liable for negligence
• Some case law supports the gross negligence view, but more favorable is a standard of reasonable care for the circumstances (wider breadth than just committing gross negligence to be liable)
• Precedents from previous cases:
• Thus an ordinary degree of care and skill was traditionally required where both benefited from the transaction; slighter degree when its beneficial solely to the bailor, and higher degree when its beneficial solely to the bailee

Question 14

Gaudreau Ratio

Answer 14

• Old test was rendered irrelevant
• New test for bailment is what is reasonable in the circumstances (reasonable care of goods, unlike previous approach for gratuitous bailments)
• Applicable to all cases of bailment

Question 15

Punch v Savoy’s Jewellers Ltd Facts

Answer 15

• Punch received a very attractive antique ring and was worth $11,000
• Savoy was unable to repair the ring, so it sent it to another jeweler
• The jeweler completed the repair and sent it back but then the ring never made it back to Savoy via CN
• CN has a limitation clause of being disallowed to ship items for over the value of $100

Question 16

Punch Issue

Answer 16

Who was responsible for the ring at the time of loss
- who was negligent

Question 17

Punch Holding

Answer 17

• Walker and CN were in breach of the duty they owed to Punch
• Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Question 18

Punch Reasoning

Answer 18

• Savoy was a bailee, and Walker Jewelers and CN were sub-bailees
• Breached this duty by failing to obtain instructions from the owner as to the means of carriage in light of the postal strike; by failure to give a proper evaluation of the ring to the carrier and by failure to give a proper evaluation of the ring to the carrier, and by failure to stipulate as a term of the carriage insurance coverage for true value of the ring itself
• CN is also liable for the unexplained loss of the ring

Question 19

Punch Ratio

Answer 19

Identify the actors (and their corresponding responsibilities), and then evaluate their negligence

Question 20

Gravina v Welsh Facts

Answer 20

• Loss of a coin collection
• Gravina gave Welsh the coins to have them appraised but he subsequently lost them
• Welsh disputes his liability for losing the coins and submits they were worth approximately $1125-$1345

Question 21

Gravina Issue

Answer 21

was Welsh negligent in losing the coins

Question 22

Gravina Holding

Answer 22

Case dismissed, summary judgment for the P

Question 23

Gravina Reasoning

Answer 23

• Even gratuitous bailees are held to a standard of care and are presumed to be negligent when goods are lost
• He did not discharge the standard of care

Question 24

Gravina Ratio

Answer 24

Standard of care still applies to gratuitous bailments
Application of the Gaudreau Belter test

Question 25

Winkfield Facts

Answer 25

- The Winkfield and the Mexican, two ships collided off the coast of South Africa. Due to the collision, both ships were damaged and the Mexican sank - The crew, passengers, and some mail and luggage were salvaged, but the remaining cargo on the Mexican's cargo was lost - The owners of the Winkfield admitted that they were liable for the collision - The Postmaster General filed a claim seeking the value of the lost mail for which no oter claim had been made. PMG had possession as a bailment from various owners but was not liable to the bailors for their losses - The court refused the claim on the grounds that PPMG did not have liability to anyone that was interested in the lost mail. Therefore, the PMG could not bring a claim for its value (there was no loss; therefore no liability)

Question 26

Winkfield Issues

Answer 26

Whether a bailee may seek recovery against the bailor for damage to chattels regardless if the bailee is not liable to the bailor for the damage

Question 27

Winkfield Holding

Answer 27

- Appeal allowed - The bailee can recover the value of goods against a stranger regardless of any liability to bailor - In an action against a stranger for loss of goods caused by his negligence, the bailee in possession can recover the value of goods

Question 28

Winkfield Reasoning

Answer 28

- The bailee possession gives title with respect to a stranger - that is, not a limited interest, but absolute and complete ownership, and he is entitled to receive back a complete equivalent for the whole loss or deterioration of the thing itself - The chattel that has been converted or damaged is deemed to be the chattel of the possessor and of no other - Assumed that any bailee suing for full value would hold ownership value as trust for the owner

Question 29

Solway v Davis Moving and Storage Inc Facts

Answer 29

- P's family was moving all their goods from old house to storage unit while new house was being renovated. They knew of D's mover's limitation clause capping liability at 7k - Goods were not stored as indicated (trailer left on public street) - All goods were stolen

Question 30

Solway Issue

Answer 30

Does the limitation clause apply

Question 31

Solway Holding

Answer 31

Held for P

Question 32

Solway Reasoning

Answer 32

- D should be allowed to rely on limitation clause even though Ps knew about it - D made false statements about the security arrangements for their belongings - The Ps were never advised that their goods would be stored in a trailer left unattended on a public street and they never agreed to such an arrangement. To limit their loss to 7k would be unconscionable - Were the damages reasonable foreseeable -> D's representative met with Ps at their house and D commented on the antiques and furniture; they did have some foresight regarding the expensive cargo

Question 33

Solway Ratio

Answer 33

- Clause inapplicable if unconscionable and if bailee acted in a manner not agreed to - No contract if terms were breached or not met

Question 34

Samuel Smith and Sons v Silverman Facts

Answer 34

- P parked his Cadillac in a parking lot in Toronto. He paid parking fee and received a ticket - When he returned to the lot he noticed his car has been damaged - It was conceded that this was a case of bailment as P had left that keys with parking attendants - Ticket clearly and explicitly indicated that Ds were not responsible for loss or damage however caused (signs, well lit, bolded and uppercase)

Question 35

Samuel Smith Issues

Answer 35

Was P bound by the limitation clause in the parking agreement w Ds

Question 36

Samuel Smith Holding

Answer 36

D did everything reasonable to bring limitation clause to Ps attention, the wording on the ticket was sufficiently clear

Question 37

Samuel Smith Reasoning

Answer 37

Limitation clause was made clear via the ticket and signs

Question 38

Samuel Smith Ratio

Answer 38

- Limitation clause must be clear and adequate; bailee must do everything reasonable to bring such terms to bailor's attention (proof of intent to be legally bound) - There is a contract because this was a term of the contract that was agreed to - Assumption of risk by entering into the K