Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

employer, who might be unwilling to bound to use prudence in administraconsent to the bailment on any other tion only, and cannot be held liable terms. Rutgers v. Lucet (1800) 2 for losses against which such adminisJohns. Cas. (N. Y.) 92; Jenkins v. tration could not avail. Bataille v. Bacon (1873) 111 Mass. 373, 15 Am. Ribet (1883) 35 La. Ann. 1203. Rep. 33, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 781.

A gratuitous agent may be liable for

misfeasance or malfeasance. Young III. Liability for misfeasance; degree of v. Attwood (1821) Newfoundl. Sel. care or skill required.

Cas. 233. a. In general.

So, although there is no considera

tion for one party's undertaking to Not liable for loss without fault.

procure insurance for another, yet It is a judicial commonplace that a

where he proceeds to carry his undergratuitous bailee or mandatary is not

taking into effect by getting a policy liable for a loss or destruction of the

underwritten, but does it so negligentsubject-matter of the bailment with

ly or unskilfully that the party inout his fault. See, inter alia, Levy v.

sured derives no benefit from it, he is Bergeron (1868) 20 La. Ann. 290;

liable. Wilkinson v. Coverdale (1793) Lampley v. Scott (1852) 24 Miss. 528;

1 Esp. (Eng.) 75; Johnston v. Graham McKay v. Hamblin (1866) 40 Miss.

(1863) 14 U. C. C. P. 9; Evan L. Reed 472; Anderson v. Foresman (1834) Mfg. Ćo. v. Wurts (1914) 187 Ill. App. Wright (Ohio) 598, 1 Am. Neg. Cas.

378. 813; Danville Bank v. Waddill (1879)

Thus, an insurance agent who has 31 Gratt (Va.) 469; Bullen v. Swan

gratuitously undertaken to have an Electric Engraving Co. (1906) 22 additional policy placed on the plainTimes L. R. (Eng.) 275, appeal dis

tiff's property, and to notify the commissed in (1907) 23 Times L. R. 258;

panies already holding policies of this Leggo v. Welland Vale Mfg. Co.

additional insurance, is liable for a (1901) 2 Ont. L. Rep. 45.

loss resulting from his failure to give In Foster v. Essex Bank (1821) 17 such notice. Baxter v. Jones (1903) 6 Mass. 479, 9 Am. Dec. 168, 1 Am. Neg.

Ont. L. Rep. 360. Cas. 502, it is said that the dictum of

And one who has gratuitously unLord Coke that the bare acceptance of dertaken to obtain insurance for angoods to keep implies a promise to other is liable for any damage resultkeep them safely, so that the deposit- ing from his failure to do so, if, after ary will be liable for loss by theft or

entering upon such undertaking, he accident, is entirely exploded, such abandons or neglects his performance. dictum, and the decision on which it Vickery v. Lanier (1858) 1 Met. (Ky.) is based, having been fully and ex- 133. plicitly overruled by all the judges, in

Is liable only for gross negligence or the case of Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2

bad faith. Ld. Raym. 913, 92 Eng. Reprint, 107, 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 247, 1 Am. Neg. Cas.

Although differing as to what the 948.

expression connotes, and sometimes

characterizing it as "an inapt, but apThe gratuitous depositary of funds

parently settled phrase" (see Gottlieb is not liable for their depreciation

v. Wallace Wall Paper Co. (1913) 156 where the bailor has the same oppor

App. Div. 150, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1032), tunity and facilities to inform himself

the courts are practically united in deof such depreciation. Richardson v.

claring that a gratuitous bailee is liaFutrell (1869) 42 Miss. 525.

ble, so far as the failure to exercise The depositary of bank notes is not care is concerned, only for gross negliable for their depreciation in value ligence. unless it has proceeded from his fault, United States.-First Nat. Bank v. or has occurred after he was in de- Graham (1880) 100 U. S. 699, 25 L. fault to restore the deposit. Berard ed. 750, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 588; Preston v. Boagni (1878) 30 La. Ann. 1125. v. Prather (1890) 137 U. S. 604, 34 L.

An agent without compensation is ed. 788, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 162, 1 Am.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Neg. Rep. 599; Tracy v. Wood (1822) Ind. 315, 65 Am. Dec. 761; Bronnen3 Mason, 132, Fed. Cas. No. 14,130. buge v. Sharman (1881) 80 Ind. 475.

Alabama, Stewart Frazier Kansas. Johnson V. Reynolds (1843) 5 Ala. 114; Haynie v. Waring (1865) 3 Kan. 257; Hale v. Rawallie (1.836) 29 Ala. 263; Henry v. Porter (1871) 8 Kan. 136, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. (1871) 46 Ala. 293, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 493; Lobenstein v. Pritchett (1871) 8 7 15; Prince v. Alabama State Fair Kan. 213, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 769. (1898) 106 Ala. 340, 28 L.R.A. 716, 17 Kentucky.Sodowsky v. M'Farland Sjo. 449.

(1835) 3 Dana, 204; Bakewell v. TalArkansas. Lyon v. Tams (1850) bot (1836) 4 Dana, 217; Green v. Hol11 Ark. 189; Cullridge v. Howard lingsworth (1837) 5 Dana, 174, 30 Am. (1861) 23 Ark. 61, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. Dec. 680, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 771; United 752; Wear v. Gleason (1889) 52 Ark. Soc. v. Underwood (1873) 9 Bush, 609, 364, 20 Am. St. Rep. 186, 12 S. W. 756; 15 Am. Rep. 731; TREVATHAN V. FARM. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Hen- ERS BANK (reported herewith) ante, son (1895) 61 Ark. 302, 32 S. W. 1079, 1180. 13 Am. Neg. Cas. 246; Baker v. Bailey Maine.-Storer v. Gowen (1841) 18 (1912) 103 Ark. 12, 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) Me, 174; Knowles v. Atlantic & St. L. 1085, 145 S. W. 532; St. Louis, I. M. & R. Co. (1854) 38 Me. 55, 61 Am. Dec. S. R. Co. v. Miller (1912) 103 Ark. 37, 234. 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) 634, 145 S. W. 889. Massachusetts. - Foster v. Essex

California.—Davis v. National Lum- Bank (1821) 17 Mass. 479, 9 Am. Dec. ber Co. (1913) 22 Cal. App. 111, 133 168, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 502; Smith v. Pac. 509.

First Nat. Bank (1868) 99 Mass. 605, Dakota.—Whiting v. Chicago, M. & 97 Am. Dec. 59, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 523. St. P. R. Co. (1888) 5 Dak. 90, 37 N. Michigan. -- Barrows v. Cushway W. 222.

(1877) 37 Mich. 481; Marshall v. PonDelaware. Chase Maberry tiac, 0. & N. R. Co. (1901) 126 Mich. (1840) 3 Harr. 266.

45, 55 L.R.A. 650, 85 N. W. 242. Florida.–O'Brien v. Vaill (1886) 22 Mississippi. - Lampley

V. Scott Fla. 627, 1 Am. St. Rep. 219, 1 So. 137. (1852) 24 Miss. 528; McKay v. HamGeorgia. - McNabb v. Lockhart

blin (1866) 40 Miss. 472; Richardson (1855) 18 Ga. 495, 1 Am. Neg. Cas.

v. Futrell (1869) 42 Miss. 525; Illinois 754; Self v. Dunn (1871) 42 Ga. 528, C. R. Co. v. Trontine (1887) 64 Miss. 5 Am. Rep. 544 (following Code provi

834, 2 So. 255. sion); Stewart v. Head (1883) 70 Ga.

Missouri.—McLean v. Rutherford 449 (following Code provision); Mer

(1843) 8 Mo. 109; Graves v. Poage chants Nat. Bank v. Guilmartin (1893)

(1852) 17 Mo. 91, 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 93 Ga. 503, 44 Am. St. Rep. 182, 21 S. 670; Wiser v. Chesley (1873) 53 Mo. E. 55.

547; E. 0. Stanard Mill Co. v. White Illinois.—Marine Bank v. Rushmore Line Central & Transit Co. (1894) 122 (1862) 28 Ill. 463; Michigan C.R. Co. Mo. 258, 26 S. W. 704; Woolf v. BernV. Carrow (1874) 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. ero (1883) 14 Mo. App. 518, 1 Am. Rep. 248; Hindman v. Borders (1878) Neg. Cas. 911; Hapgood Plow Co. v. 89 Ill. 336; Gray v. Merriam (1893) Wabash R. Co. (1895) 61 Mo. App. 148 Ill. 179, 32 L.R.A. 769, 39 Am. St. 372; Mason v. St. Louis Union Stock Rep. 172, 35 N. E. 810, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. Yards Co. (1894) 60 Mo. App. 93; Mc478; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Tyler (1894) Kenna v. Walker (1900) 85 Mo. App. 54 Ill. App. 97; M. Kenny Transfer Co. 570; King v. Exchange Bank (1904) v. Mayer Bros. Co. (1912) 170 Ill. App. 106 Mo. App. 1, 78 S. W. 1038; Levi v. 607; Smith v. Fligel (1914) 185 Ill. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. (1911) 157 App. 359; Glende v. Spraner (1916) Mo. App. 536, 138 S. W. 699; Sails v. 198 Ill. App. 584.

Funk (1913) 175 Mo. App. 500, 161 S. Indiana.—Dart v. Lowe (1854) 5 W. 1175; Adler v. Planters' Hotel Co. Ind. 131, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 891; Kemp v. (1916) Mo. App. -, 181 S. W. 1062. Farlow (1854) 5 Ind. 462, 1 Am. Neg. Nebraska. Burk v. Dempster Cas. 767; Conner v. Winton (1856) 8 (1892) 34 Neb. 426, 51 N. W.976; Bir

[ocr errors]

.

sell v. Harris (1901) i Neb. (Unof.) Tennessee. — Jenkins V. Motlow 535, 95 N. W. 779.

(1853) 1 Sneed, 248, 60 Am. Dec. 154; New Hampshire.—Brown V. Grand Colyar v. Taylor (1860) 1 Coldw. 372, Trunk R. Co. (1874) 54 N. H. 535. 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 825; Whitemore v.

New Jersey.-Dudley v. Camden & Haroldson (1879) 2 Lea, 312; Tulane P. Ferry Co. (1880) 42 N. J. L. 25, 36 Hotel Co. v. Holohan (1903) 112 Tenn. Am. Rep. 501.

214, 105 Am. St. Rep. 930, 79 S. W. 113, New York.-Edson v. Weston (1827) 2 Ann. Cas. 345, 15 Am. Neg. Rep. 719; 7 Cow. 278; Beardslee v. Richardson Marshall v. Nashville R. & Light Co. (1833) 11 Wend. 25, 25 Am. Dec. 596; (1907) 118 Tenn. 254, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) First Nat. Bank v. Ocean Nat. Bank 1246, 101 S. W. 419, 12 Ann. Cas. 675. (1875) 60 N. Y, 278, 19 Am. Rep. 181; Texas.-Fulton v. Alexander (1858) Pattison v. Syracuse Nat. Bank (1880) 21 Tex. 148, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 836; 80 N. Y. 82, 36 Am. Rep. 582; Ouder- Texas C. R. Co. v. Flanary (1898) kirk v. Central Nat. Bank (1890) 119 Tex. Civ. App. —, 45 S. W. 214, subscN. Y. 263, 23 N. E. 875; Harter v. quent appeal in (1899) 50 S. W. 726. Blanchard (1873) 64 Barb. 617; Jack- Utah.–Lawrence v. Howard (1874) son v. Eighmie (1887) 10 N. Y. S. R. 1 Utah, 142. 359; Hoffman v. Roessle (1902) 39 Vermont.-Carpenter V. Branch Misc. 787, 81 N. Y. Supp. 291; Patriska (1841) 13 Vt. 161, 37 Am. Dec. 587, i v. Kronk (1908) 57 Misc. 552, 109 N. Y. Am. Neg. Cas. 736; Spooner v. Mattoon Supp. 1092; Di Dio v. Robino (1909) (1868) 40 Vt. 300, 94 Am. Dec. 395. 116 N. Y. Supp. 702; Gottlieb v. Wal- Virginia.—Tancil v. Seaton (1877) lace Wall Paper Co. (1913) 156 App. 28 Gratt. 601, 26 Am. Rep. 380; CarDiv. 150, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1032; Gold- rington v. Ficklin (1880) 32 Gratt. seiger v, Balik (1914) 147 N. Y. Supp. 670; Yates v. Ley (1917) 121 Va. 265, 148; Wechsler v. Picard Importing Co. 92 S. E. 837. (1916) 94 Misc. 157, 157 N. Y. Supp. Washington. - Bradford - Kennedy 803; Workingman's Club v. Boguszew- Co. v. Buchanan (1916) 91 Wash. 539, ski (1916) 161 N. Y. Supp. 382.

158 Pac. 76. North Carolina. -Patterson V. Mc- Wisconsin.-Jones v. Parish (1845) Iver (1884) 90 N. C. 493; State's Pris- 1 Pinney, 494, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 848; on v. Hoffman (1912) 159 N. C. 564, 76

Minor v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. S. E. 3; Perry v. Seaboard Air Line R.

(1865) 19 Wis. 41, 88 Am. Dec. 670. Co. (1916) 171 N. C. 158, L.R.A. 1916E,

England.—Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 478, 88 S. E. 156.

2 Ld. Raym. 909, 92 Eng. Reprint, 107, Ohio.—Montieth v. Bissell (1833)

5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 247, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. Wright, 411; Grant v. Ludlow (1857) 8 Ohio St. 1; Griffith v. Zipperwick

948; Beauchamp v. Powley (1831) 1 (1876) 28 Ohio St. 388, 1 Am. Neg.

Moody & R. 38; Doorman v. Jenkins Cas. 545; Torbet v. Young (1915) 24

(1834) 2 Ad. & El. 256, 111 Eng. ReOhio C. C. N. S. 97.

print, 99, 4 L. J. K. B. N. S. 29, 4 Nev. Pennsylvania.-Tompkins V. Salt

& M. 170. marsh (1826) 14 Serg. & R. 275; 1 Am.

Canada.-Palin v. Reid (1885) 10 Neg. Cas. 814; Lancaster County Nat.

Ont. App. Rep. 63; Leggo v. Welland Bank v. Smith (1869) 62 Pa. 47, 1 Am.

Vale Mfg. Co. (1901) 2 Ont. L. Rep. Neg. Cas. 570; First Nat. Bank v, Gra- 45; Carlisle v. Grand Trunk R. Co. ham (1875) 79 Pa. 106, 21 Am. Rep. (1912) 25 Ont. L. Rep. 372, 8 D. L. R. 49; First Nat. Bank v. Rex (1879) 89

130. Pa. 308, 33 Am. Rep. 767; Hofford v. A variant form of expression is that New York C. & H. R. R. Co. (1910) 43 gratuitous bailee is responsible only Pa. Super. Ct. 310; Hirsh v. Anderson for gross negligence, or bad faith, or Hotel Co. (1914) 58 Pa. Super. Ct. 387. breach of good faith.

South Carolina.-Ulmer v. Ulmer United States.--Eldridge v. Hill (1820) 2 Nott & I'C. 489; Glover v. (1877) 97 U. S. 92, 24 L. ed. 970. Burbridge (1887) 27 S. C. 305, 3 S. E. Alabama.-Thomas Hackney 471, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 821.

(1915) 192 Ala. 27, 68 So. 296.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Illinois.Skelley v. Kahn (1855) 17 Ill. 170.

Iowa.—Jourdan v. Reed (1855) 1 Iowa, 135.

Massachusetts. — Jenkins v. Bacon (1873) 111 Mass. 373, 15 Am. Rep. 33, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 781.

Mississippi.-Scarborough v. Webb (1882) 59 Miss. 449. Pennsylvania. --Lloyd

V. West Branch Bank (1850) 15 Pa. 172, 53 Am. Dec. 583, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 574.

Tennessee.-Kirtland v. Montgomery (1852) 1 Swan, 452; RIDENOUR V. WOODWARD (reported herewith) ante, 1192.

Other cases state that the bailee is liable only for gross negligence or fraud.

Illinois.—Stewart v. Butts (1892) 45 Ill. App. 512.

Kentucky.-Ray V. Bank of Kentucky (1874) 10 Bush, 344; Dunn v. Kyle (1878) 14 Bush, 134.

Louisiana.–Boyd v. Estis (1856) 11 La. Ann. 704; Dunn v. Branner (1858) 13 La. Ann. 452; Carol v. Monteleone (Carol v. Kenney) (1916) 139 La. 541, L.R.A.1916F, 234, 71 So. 798. Massachusetts. - Whitney V. Lee

. (1844) 8 Met. 91, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 789.

New Hampshire.—Graves v. Ticknor (1834) 6 N. H. 537, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 806.

North Carolina.-Stanton V. Bell (1822) 9 N. C. (2 Hawks) 145, 11 Am. Dec. 744.

Pennsylvania.Swentzel v. Penn Bank (1892) 147 Pa. 140, 15 L.R.A. 305, 30 Am. St. Rep. 718, 23 Atl. 405.

Vermont.-Whitney V. First Nat. Bank (1882) 55 Vt. 154, 45 Am. Rep. 598, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 582.

West Virginia.—Belmont Coal Co. v. Richter (1888) 31 W. Va. 858, 8 S. E. 609.

By fraud must be intended any want of good faith, or such utter disregard of the rights of the owners of the property as indicates bad faith. Whitney v. Lee (1844) 8 Met. (Mass.) 91, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 789.

Other forms of expression are, that the bailee is liable only for fraud or such gross negligence as amounts to fraud (Hibernia Bldg. Asso. v. McGrath (1893) 154 Pa. 296, 35 Am. St.

Rep. 828, 26 Atl. 377), or gross negli. gence amounting in legal effect to fraud (Caldwell v. Peninsular State Bank (1917) 195 Mich. 407, 162 N. W. 89; Scott v. National Bank (1873) 72 Pa. 471, 13 Am. Rep. 711); for gross negligence in keeping the property, or for fraud in refusing to give it up (Lafarge v. Morgan (1822) 11 Mart. (La.) 462); for gross negligence or wilful misconduct (Lusk v. Bloch (1917) Okla. - L.R.A.1918C, 109, 168 Pac.

. 430).

In the case of a simple depositum, without a reward, the law raises only a promise not grossly to neglect or abuse the deposit. Mytton v. Cock (1738) 2 Strange, 1099, 93 Eng. Reprint, 1057.

The only duty that is imposed on a person employed, without pay and without remuneration, to perform a certain act, is a duty to act faithfully and honestly, and not to be guilty of any gross or corrupt neglect in the discharge of that which he undertakes to do. Dartnall v. Howard (1825) 4 Barn. & C. 345, 107 Eng. Reprint, 1088.

A gratuitous bailee must use some care and diligence. Blosser Co. v. Doonan (1910) 8 Ga. App. 285, 68 S. E. 1074. Various meanings of term "gross negli. gence."

The expression that a gratuitous bailee is liable only for gross negligence, though useful in a minor way as marking the fact that a distinction exists between the liability of a gratuitous bailee and of a bailee for hire, is as empty as a bass drum, and has about as much to do with the decision of the cases as that instrument has to do with carrying the tune.

The courts have given it various interpretations. Primarily, gross negligence connoted the failure to exercise a slight degree of care,-“that care which even the most inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take of their own concerns." See cases infra, under catchline, “_the care taken by the inattentive or thoughtless in their own concerns."

But some courts consider it as connoting the failure to exercise "reasonable" care.

See cases infra, under

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

heading, "measure of care required," On the other hand, in Giblin v. M'subhead, “-reasonable care."

Mullen (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. (Eng.) Still others, apparently coinciding 317, it is said: “From the time of in Lord Cranworth's view that gross

Lord Holt's celebrated judgment in negligence is merely negligence with Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. the addition of a vituperative epithet, 909, 92 Eng. Reprint, 107, 5 Eng. Rul. define it as a failure to exercise ordi- Cas. 247, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 948, in which nary care. See cases infra, under he classified and distinguished the heading, "Measure of care required," different degrees of negligence for subhead, “—ordinary care."

which the different kinds of bailees Propriety of distinction between de- are answerable, the negligence which grees of negligence.

must be established against a gratui

tous bailee has been called 'gross negThe controversy as to whether there

ligence.' This term has been used are, properly, any different degrees of negligence, has extended into the cases

from that period, without objection, as involving the liability of gratuitous

a short and convenient mode of debailees.

scribing the degree of responsibility In Sherwood V. Home Sav. Bank

which attaches upon a bailee of this (1906) 131 Iowa, 528, 109 N. W. 9, it

class. At least, Lord Cranworth (then is said that most of the authorities are

Baron Rolfe), in the case of Wilson v. to the effect that proof of gross negli

Brett (1843) 11 Mees. & W. 113, 152 gence is essential to a recovery, in

Eng. Reprint, 737, 12 L. J. Exch. N. S. event of the loss of a gratuitous depos- 264, objected to it, saying that he it; but that the classification of neg

'could see no difference between zegligence as "slight," "ordinary," and

ligence and gross negligence; that it "gross" has been quite generally

was the same thing, with the addition abandoned, and a more rational view

of a vituperative epithet.' And this adopted.

critical observation has been since apAnd in Cannon River Mfrs.' Asso.

proved of by other eminent judges. v. First Nat. Bank (1887) 37 Minn.

Of course, if intended as a definition,

the expression, gross negligence,' 394, 34 N. W. 741, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 531, it was said that it is not easy, nor

wholly fails of its object. But as there again really profitable, to define or

is a practical difference between the point out the somewhat hazy distinc

degrees of negligence for which differtion between the several degrees of

ent classes of bailees are responsible, diligence.

the term may be usefully retained as And in Booth v. Litchfield (1909) 62

descriptive of that difference, more Misc. 279, 114 N. Y. Supp. 1009, af

especially as it has been so long in firmed without opinion in (1909) 134

familiar use, and has been sanctioned

by such high authority as Lord Holt, App. Div. 955, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1095,

and Sir William Jones in his Essay on the court, in approving an instruction

the Law of Bailments. In the case of making the exercise of reasonable care

Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Co. in the protection of the property, in

(1866) L. R. 1 C. P. 612, 35 L. J. C. P. view of all the circumstances, the

N. S. 321, 12 Jur. N. S. 727, 14 L. T. N. measure of the duty of a gratuitous bailee, said that it was not necessary

S. 711, 14 Week. Rep. 893, 4 Eng. Rul.

Cas. 680, Mr. Justice Willes, after to deny as an abstract proposition that

agreeing with the dictum of Lord a gratuitous bailee is liable only in the event of gross negligence, but that

Cranworth, and stating that the same however useful the expressions,

view of the term, 'gross negligence,' "slight," "ordinary," and "gross negli- was held by the exchequer chamber in gence," may have been for the purpose

Beal v. South Devon R. Co. (1864) 3 of academic discussion, they have Hurlst. & C. 337, 159 Eng. Reprint, been found wanting and have broken 560, said: 'Confusion has arisen from down when an attempt was made to regarding negligence as a positive inmake use of them practically, before stead of a negative word. It is really juries.

the absence of such care as it was the 4. A.L.R.–76.

« НазадПродовжити »