[Meloncoly]

I'm trying to understand part of my homework, and even reading the book and researching, I don't understand it. The homework asks to discuss the standard of care traditionally required by the scenario, and whether the bailee breached that duty. Here's the situation:

Ricardo borrows Steve's lawn mower because his own lawn mower needs repair. Ricardo mows his front yard. To mow the backyard, he needs to move some hoses and lawn furniture. He leaves the mower in front of his house while doing so. When he returns to the front yard, he discovers that the mower has been stolen.

I know that this is a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee, so the degree of care required by the bailee is very high. I also know that Ricardo violated his contractual duty, and this could result in the tort of conversion or negligence.

The part that I don't understand is that in the book, it says there are exceptions to this. The exception is that the obligation is excused cause it was stolen. Does this mean that there was no breach of duty? Can a case be made for negligence because Ricardo left it out in the open? How liable is he? Any help or direction would be appreciated, thanks~

 

[Uncle Erik]

Oh man. Sounds like a bar question. I'm rusty on this stuff and the Sierra Nevadas I've been drinking aren't helping any.

First, was a valid contract formed? It doesn't sound like there was any consideration, so there probably isn't a contract.

Second, this would not be an intentional tort since there was no intent for the mower to be stolen.

That would leave it in torts under negligence. What is the standard for negligence in the jurisdiction where the theft took place?

I'm getting fuzzy from there and don't have my outlines at hand. Just be a reasonable, prudent person, watch out for the fee tail remainders, beware of easements and know the difference between a frolic and a detour.

If no one else helps out, I'll tackle this again once I dry out.

 

[Henry Flower]

First, I agree with everything Erik said.

Second, I have no idea about your particular jurisdiction.

But for what it's worth, my suspicions are:

- you should be thinking about this in terms of the liability arising from bailment rather than from the tort of negligence. I would expect the standard of care required here to be higher than in general negligence, which would fit with what you said about the very high degree of care. I would be very surprised if Ricardo were not considered negligent for leaving the mower in public unattended.

- Could the exception for theft be for loss of the object _after_ it's stolen? I.e. the object is stolen (through no fault of the bailee), after which he can't be held responsible. That wouldn't affect responsibility for negligently _allowing_ the object to be stolen.

 

[Meloncoly]

Uncle Erik, you confused the hell out of me >_<. I'm only taking beginner classes at a community college, nothing even remotely close to the bar exam since I'm trying to become a paralegal, so I barely understood what you wrote. This is a question out of my book for my business law class at my community college. I re-read it a billion more times, and I just decided that it was a breach of the duty of care since as a bailee, he has the responsibility to take appropriate care of the property, and that he was negligent because he went to the backyard and just left the lawn mower in the front yard without supervision. The details of the problem doesn't go much into anything of what you said, I think the question is trying to get you to think a little (at a very basic level >_<). Thanks for the help though! :3

Edit: Now I have to do the same thing for the next problem, but this time the situation is a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailor. I wish I did not procrastinate and do this last minute. It's due in the morning 3:

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meloncoly /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm trying to understand part of my homework, and even reading the book and researching, I don't understand it. The homework asks to discuss the standard of care traditionally required by the scenario, and whether the bailee breached that duty. Here's the situation: Ricardo borrows Steve's lawn mower because his own lawn mower needs repair. Ricardo mows his front yard. To mow the backyard, he needs to move some hoses and lawn furniture. He leaves the mower in front of his house while doing so. When he returns to the front yard, he discovers that the mower has been stolen. I know that this is a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee, so the degree of care required by the bailee is very high. I also know that Ricardo violated his contractual duty, and this could result in the tort of conversion or negligence. The part that I don't understand is that in the book, it says there are exceptions to this. The exception is that the obligation is excused cause it was stolen. Does this mean that there was no breach of duty? Can a case be made for negligence because Ricardo left it out in the open? How liable is he? Any help or direction would be appreciated, thanks~

I'm confused by what you're asking. Are you trying to figure out to what extent the bailee would be liabile under the bailment here? Or are you trying to establish liability for the tort of negligence or for the tort of conversion?

If you're just trying to establish liability for the tort of negligence, there are four required elements that must be met: that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, that the plaintiff suffered legally recognizable damages, and that those damages were a result of the defendant's breach of duty. In this case, the defendant did owe the plaintiff a reasonable duty of care to protect the plaintiff's property and the plaintiff did suffer legally recognizable damages. However, it would be difficult to prove under the reasonable person standard, that the defendant could have reasonably expected the lawn mower to be stolen in the few minutes where he left the mower unattended to move the lawn furniture in his back yard. Since you'd most likely be unable to establish that the defendant breached his duty of care, you would be unable to prove that the damages to the plaintiff were a result of any breach of duty by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant would not be liable for the tort of negligence as you would not be able to establish the four required elements for the plaintiff's prima facie case.

For the tort of conversion, you have to again meet four elements: that the plaintiff owned or had the right to possess the personal property in question at the time of the interference, that the defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's personal property, that the the interference deprived the plaintiff of possession or use of the personal property in question, and that the interference caused legally recognizable damages to the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff did own the property in question at the time of interference (the theft), the interference did deprive the plaintiff of possession or use of the personal property in question, and the interference did cause legally recognizable damages to the plaintiff. However, the defendant did not intentionally interfere with the plaintiff's personal property, it was stolen accidentally by another individual. Therefore, you would be unable to establish all four required elements of the plaintiff's prima facie case and the defendant would not be liable for the tort of conversion.

I haven't really studied bailments that much so I can't be much help here. I know that in a tiered system, since the bailee is the sole beneficiary of the bailment in this case, he would be liable for all damages that result from any form of negligence but I'm not sure how you'd be able to use theft as an exception in this case. I guess you could try apply the reasonable person standard again in trying to figure out negligence, but I don't know if the reasonable person standard would even apply here since you're not trying to establish general negligence. I'm also just a student so maybe some of the actual law professionals could help here.

P.S.-It's pretty late here so my brain's kind of shot. Don't know if this is hurting or helping you.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you're just trying to establish liability for the tort of negligence, there are four required elements that must be met: that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, that the plaintiff suffered legally recognizable damages, and that those damages were a result of the defendant's breach of duty. In this case, the defendant did owe the plaintiff a reasonable duty of care to protect the plaintiff's property and the plaintiff did suffer legally recognizable damages. However, it would be difficult to prove under the reasonable person standard, that the defendant could have reasonably expected the lawn mower to be stolen in the few minutes where he left the mower unattended to move the lawn furniture in his back yard. Since you'd most likely be unable to establish that the defendant breached his duty of care, you would be unable to prove that the damages to the plaintiff were a result of any breach of duty by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant would not be liable for the tort of negligence as you would not be able to establish the four required elements for the plaintiff's prima facie case.

I like this answer. It just sounds right (we are all about how things sound on this site)

However, with that being said, even if the expectation of getting stolen is extremely low and even if the likelihood of actually getting the lawn mower stolen is small, all the neighbor had to do was to move the lawn mower inside the house or to an area that's relatively hidden. The actual cost of preventing the harm (getting stolen) from happening is almost nothing, in which case B < P*L (I don't know why I still remember this). So I would argue otherwise.

The common sense thing to do would be: you would probably ask your neighbor to pay up because it was his fault that he left your lawn mower in the public. You are definitely pissed and you want your stuff back

 

[nealric]

I would just like to ad that this is an idiotic way to teach an intro to business law class at a CC.

 

[deadhead12]

*looks for understanding property book/torts notes.* *can't find them, oh well*
I think the OP's question is "Can a bailee be liable in tort for the intentional acts of a third party?" Generally an intentional act (tort/crime, w/e) of a third party is an intervening cause that breaks the causal chain (i think maybe the exception OP talked about), but I think the answer to the question ultimately comes down to forseeability. (Palsgraf I think)(I also remember a case where a train hit a wagon hauling beer or something and the railroad was liable for the theft of the beer by a third party because it was forseeable that people steal from trains/wagons, etc. as evidenced by their {the railroad} employing guards to protect their cargo and since the actions of the railroad supposedly put the wagon in a vunerable position the railroad owed the wagon a duty to have its guards watch out for the wagon as well. I don't remember the case name though, I just remember thinking the case was wrongly decided.) Anyways, could a 'reasonable person' foresee that leaving the mower on the front lawn would lead to its theft? I would argue that it is forseeable that the mower could get stolen and by not taking steps to secure the mower the bailee has breached his duty of care (for the mower, to the bailor) that was created by the bailment. (actual notice would be great, i.e. stuff has been stolen from front lawn or from neighbors before) Since the duty of care is highest for the bailee when the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailee, then yeah I think the bailee is liable.

Hope this helps and I hope it is right as I really don't remember torts as well as I should.

 

[trevorlane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh man. Sounds like a bar question. I'm rusty on this stuff and the Sierra Nevadas I've been drinking aren't helping any. First, was a valid contract formed? It doesn't sound like there was any consideration, so there probably isn't a contract. Second, this would not be an intentional tort since there was no intent for the mower to be stolen. That would leave it in torts under negligence. What is the standard for negligence in the jurisdiction where the theft took place? I'm getting fuzzy from there and don't have my outlines at hand. Just be a reasonable, prudent person, watch out for the fee tail remainders, beware of easements and know the difference between a frolic and a detour. If no one else helps out, I'll tackle this again once I dry out.

Uncle Erik, Can I transplant your brain into my head come bar exam time? My issue spotting is about as spotty as a dalmatian.