employer, who might be unwilling to consent to the bailment on any other terms. Rutgers v. Lucet (1800) 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 92; Jenkins v. Bacon (1873) 111 Mass. 373, 15 Am. Rep. 33, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 781. III. Liability for misfeasance; degree of care or skill required. a. In general. Not liable for loss without fault. It is a judicial commonplace that a gratuitous bailee or mandatary is not liable for a loss or destruction of the subject-matter of the bailment without his fault. See, inter alia, Levy v. Bergeron (1868) 20 La. Ann. 290; Lampley v. Scott (1852) 24 Miss. 528; McKay v. Hamblin (1866) 40 Miss. 472; Anderson v. Foresman (1834) Wright (Ohio) 598, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 813; Danville Bank v. Waddill (1879) 31 Gratt (Va.) 469; Bullen v. Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1906) 22 Times L. R. (Eng.) 275, appeal dismissed in (1907) 23 Times L. R. 258; Leggo v. Welland Vale Mfg. Co. (1901) 2 Ont. L. Rep. 45. In Foster v. Essex Bank (1821) 17 Mass. 479, 9 Am. Dec. 168, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 502, it is said that the dictum of Lord Coke that the bare acceptance of goods to keep implies a promise to keep them safely, so that the depositary will be liable for loss by theft or accident, is entirely exploded, such dictum, and the decision on which it is based, having been fully and explicitly overruled by all the judges, in the case of Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 913, 92 Eng. Reprint, 107, 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 247, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 948. The gratuitous depositary of funds is not liable for their depreciation where the bailor has the same opportunity and facilities to inform himself of such depreciation. Richardson v. Futrell (1869) 42 Miss. 525. The depositary of bank notes is not liable for their depreciation in value unless it has proceeded from his fault, or has occurred after he was in default to restore the deposit. Berard v. Boagni (1878) 30 La. Ann. 1125. An agent without compensation is bound to use prudence in administration only, and cannot be held liable for losses against which such administration could not avail. Bataille v. Ribet (1883) 35 La. Ann. 1203. A gratuitous agent may be liable for misfeasance or malfeasance. Young v. Attwood (1821) Newfoundl. Sel. Cas. 233. So, although there is no consideration for one party's undertaking to procure insurance for another, yet where he proceeds to carry his undertaking into effect by getting a policy underwritten, but does it so negligently or unskilfully that the party insured derives no benefit from it, he is liable. Wilkinson v. Coverdale (1793) 1 Esp. (Eng.) 75; Johnston v. Graham (1863) 14 U. C. C. P. 9; Evan L. Reed Mfg. Co. v. Wurts (1914) 187 Ill. App. 378. Thus, an insurance agent who has gratuitously undertaken to have an additional policy placed on the plaintiff's property, and to notify the companies already holding policies of this additional insurance, is liable for a loss resulting from his failure to give such notice. Baxter v. Jones (1903) 6 Ont. L. Rep. 360. And one who has gratuitously undertaken to obtain insurance for another is liable for any damage resulting from his failure to do so, if, after entering upon such undertaking, he abandons or neglects his performance. Vickery v. Lanier (1858) 1 Met. (Ky.) 133. Is liable only for gross negligence or bad faith. Although differing as to what the expression connotes, and sometimes characterizing it as "an inapt, but apparently settled phrase" (see Gottlieb v. Wallace Wall Paper Co. (1913) 156 App. Div. 150, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1032), the courts are practically united in declaring that gratuitous bailee is liable, so far as the failure to exercise care is concerned, only for gross negligence. United States.-First Nat. Bank v. Graham (1880) 100 U. S. 699, 25 L. ed. 750, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 588; Preston v. Prather (1890) 137 U. S. 604, 34 L. ed. 788, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 162, 1 Am. Arkansas. Lyon v. Tams (1850) 11 Ark. 189; Cullridge v. Howard (1861) 23 Ark. 61, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 752; Wear v. Gleason (1889) 52 Ark. 364, 20 Am. St. Rep. 186, 12 S. W. 756; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Henson (1895) 61 Ark. 302, 32 S. W. 1079, 13 Am. Neg. Cas. 246; Baker v. Bailey (1912) 103 Ark. 12, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1085, 145 S. W. 532; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Miller (1912) 103 Ark. 37, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 634, 145 S. W. 889. California.-Davis v. National Lumber Co. (1913) 22 Cal. App. 111, 133 Pac. 509. Dakota.-Whiting v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (1888) 5 Dak. 90, 37 N. W. 222. V. Maberry Florida.-O'Brien v. Vaill (1886) 22 Fla. 627, 1 Am. St. Rep. 219, 1 So. 137. Georgia. McNabb v. Lockhart (1855) 18 Ga. 495, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 754; Self v. Dunn (1871) 42 Ga. 528, 5 Am. Rep. 544 (following Code provision); Stewart v. Head (1883) 70 Ga. 449 (following Code provision); Merchants Nat. Bank v. Guilmartin (1893) 93 Ga. 503, 44 Am. St. Rep. 182, 21 S. E. 55. Illinois.-Marine Bank v. Rushmore (1862) 28 Ill. 463; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Carrow (1874) 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. Rep. 248; Hindman v. Borders (1878) 89 Ill. 336; Gray v. Merriam (1893) 148 Ill. 179, 32 L.R.A. 769, 39 Am. St. Rep. 172, 35 N. E. 810, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 478; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Tyler (1894) 54 Ill. App. 97; M. Kenny Transfer Co. v. Mayer Bros. Co. (1912) 170 Ill. App. 607; Smith v. Fligel (1914) 185 Ill. App. 359; Glende v. Spraner (1916) 198 Ill. App. 584. Indiana.-Dart v. Lowe (1854) 5 Ind. 131, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 891; Kemp v. Farlow (1854) 5 Ind. 462, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 767; Conner v. Winton (1856) 8 -- Ind. 315, 65 Am. Dec. 761; Bronnenbuge v. Sharman (1881) 80 Ind. 475. Kansas. Johnson V. Reynolds (1865) 3 Kan. 257; Hale v. Rawallie (1871) 8 Kan. 136, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 493; Lobenstein v. Pritchett (1871) 8 Kan. 213, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 769. Kentucky. Sodowsky v. M'Farland (1835) 3 Dana, 204; Bakewell v. Talbot (1836) 4 Dana, 217; Green v. Hollingsworth (1837) 5 Dana, 174, 30 Am. Dec. 680, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 771; United Soc. v. Underwood (1873) 9 Bush, 609, 15 Am. Rep. 731; TREVATHAN V. FARMERS BANK (reported herewith) ante, 1180. Maine. Storer v. Gowen (1841) 18 Me. 174; Knowles v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co. (1854) 38 Me. 55, 61 Am. Dec. 234. Massachusetts. Foster v. Essex Bank (1821) 17 Mass. 479, 9 Am. Dec. 168, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 502; Smith v. First Nat. Bank (1868) 99 Mass. 605, 97 Am. Dec. 59, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 523. Michigan. Barrows V. Cushway (1877) 37 Mich. 481; Marshall v. Pontiac, O. & N. R. Co. (1901) 126 Mich. 45, 55 L.R.A. 650, 85 N. W. 242. Mississippi. - Lampley V. Scott (1852) 24 Miss. 528; McKay v. Hamblin (1866) 40 Miss. 472; Richardson v. Futrell (1869) 42 Miss. 525; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Trontine (1887) 64 Miss. 834, 2 So. 255. Missouri.-McLean v. Rutherford (1843) 8 Mo. 109; Graves v. Poage (1852) 17 Mo. 91, 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 670; Wiser v. Chesley (1873) 53 Mo. 547; E. O. Stanard Mill Co. v. White Line Central & Transit Co. (1894) 122 Mo. 258, 26 S. W. 704; Woolf v. Bernero (1883) 14 Mo. App. 518, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 911; Hapgood Plow Co. v. Wabash R. Co. (1895) 61 Mo. App. 372; Mason v. St. Louis Union Stock Yards Co. (1894) 60 Mo. App. 93; McKenna v. Walker (1900) 85 Mo. App. 570; King v. Exchange Bank (1904) 106 Mo. App. 1, 78 S. W. 1038; Levi v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. (1911) 157 Mo. App. 536, 138 S. W. 699; Sails v. Funk (1913) 175 Mo. App. 500, 161 S. W. 1175; Adler v. Planters' Hotel Co. (1916) Mo. App. -, 181 S. W. 1062. Nebraska. Burk V. Dempster (1892) 34 Neb. 426, 51 N. W. 976; Bix - sell v. Harris (1901) 1 Neb. (Unof.) 535, 95 N. W. 779. New Hampshire.-Brown v. Grand Trunk R. Co. (1874) 54 N. H. 535. New Jersey.-Dudley v. Camden & P. Ferry Co. (1880) 42 N. J. L. 25, 36 Am. Rep. 501. New York.-Edson v. Weston (1827) 7 Cow. 278; Beardslee v. Richardson (1833) 11 Wend. 25, 25 Am. Dec. 596; First Nat. Bank v. Ocean Nat. Bank (1875) 60 N. Y. 278, 19 Am. Rep. 181; Pattison v. Syracuse Nat. Bank (1880) 80 N. Y. 82, 36 Am. Rep. 582; Ouderkirk v. Central Nat. Bank (1890) 119 N. Y. 263, 23 N. E. 875; Harter v. Blanchard (1873) 64 Barb. 617; Jackson v. Eighmie (1887) 10 N. Y. S. R. 359; Hoffman v. Roessle (1902) 39 Misc. 787, 81 N. Y. Supp. 291; Patriska v. Kronk (1908) 57 Misc. 552, 109 N. Y. Supp. 1092; Di Dio v. Robino (1909) 116 N. Y. Supp. 702; Gottlieb v. Wallace Wall Paper Co. (1913) 156 App. Div. 150, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1032; Goldseiger v. Balik (1914) 147 N. Y. Supp. 148; Wechsler v. Picard Importing Co. (1916) 94 Misc. 157, 157 N. Y. Supp. 803; Workingman's Club v. Boguszewski (1916) 161 N. Y. Supp. 382. North Carolina.-Patterson v. McIver (1884) 90 N. C. 493; State's Prison v. Hoffman (1912) 159 N. C. 564, 76 S. E. 3; Perry v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. (1916) 171 N. C. 158, L.R.A. 1916E, 478, 88 S. E. 156. Ohio.-Montieth v. Bissell (1833) Wright, 411; Grant v. Ludlow (1857) 8 Ohio St. 1; Griffith v. Zipperwick (1876) 28 Ohio St. 388, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 545; Torbet v. Young (1915) 24 Ohio C. C. N. S. 97. Pennsylvania.-Tompkins v. Saltmarsh (1826) 14 Serg. & R. 275; 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 814; Lancaster County Nat. Bank v. Smith (1869) 62 Pa. 47, Am. Neg. Cas. 570; First Nat. Bank v. Graham (1875) 79 Pa. 106, 21 Am. Rep. 49; First Nat. Bank v. Rex (1879) 89 Pa. 308, 33 Am. Rep. 767; Hofford v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. (1910) 43 Pa. Super. Ct. 310; Hirsh v. Anderson Hotel Co. (1914) 58 Pa. Super. Ct. 387. South Carolina.-Ulmer v. Ulmer (1820) 2 Nott & 'C. 489; Glover v. Burbridge (1887) 27 S. C. 305, 3 S. E. 471, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 821. Tennessee. - Jenkins V. Motlow (1853) 1 Sneed, 248, 60 Am. Dec. 154; Colyar v. Taylor (1860) 1 Coldw. 372, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 825; Whitemore v. Haroldson (1879) 2 Lea, 312; Tulane Hotel Co. v. Holohan (1903) 112 Tenn. 214, 105 Am. St. Rep. 930, 79 S. W. 113, 2 Ann. Cas. 345, 15 Am. Neg. Rep. 719; Marshall v. Nashville R. & Light Co. (1907) 118 Tenn. 254, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1246, 101 S. W. 419, 12 Ann. Cas. 675. Texas.-Fulton v. Alexander (1858) 21 Tex. 148, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 836: Texas C. R. Co. v. Flanary (1898) Tex. Civ. App. -, 45 S. W. 214, subsequent appeal in (1899) 50 S. W. 726. Utah.-Lawrence v. Howard (1874) 1 Utah, 142. Vermont.-Carpenter V. Branch (1841) 13 Vt. 161, 37 Am. Dec. 587, i Am. Neg. Cas. 736; Spooner v. Mattoon (1868) 40 Vt. 300, 94 Am. Dec. 395. Virginia. Tancil v. Seaton (1877) 28 Gratt. 601, 26 Am. Rep. 380; Carrington v. Ficklin (1880) 32 Gratt. 670; Yates v. Ley (1917) 121 Va. 265, 92 S. E. 837. Washington, Co. v. Buchanan 158 Pac. 76. Bradford - Kennedy (1916) 91 Wash. 539, Wisconsin.-Jones v. Parish (1845) 1 Pinney, 494, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 848; Minor v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1865) 19 Wis. 41, 88 Am. Dec. 670. England.-Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 92 Eng. Reprint, 107, 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 247, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 948; Beauchamp v. Powley (1831) 1 Moody & R. 38; Doorman v. Jenkins (1834) 2 Ad. & El. 256, 111 Eng. Reprint, 99, 4 L. J. K. B. N. S. 29, 4 Nev. & M. 170. Canada.-Palin v. Reid (1885) 10 Ont. App. Rep. 63; Leggo v. Welland Vale Mfg. Co. (1901) 2 Ont. L. Rep. 45; Carlisle v. Grand Trunk R. Co. (1912) 25 Ont. L. Rep. 372, 8 D. L. R. 130. A variant form of expression is that gratuitous bailee is responsible only for gross negligence, or bad faith, or breach of good faith. United States.--Eldridge v. Hill (1877) 97 U. S. 92, 24 L. ed. 970. Alabama.-Thomas V. Hackney (1915) 192 Ala. 27, 68 So. 296. 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. V. West Pennsylvania. — Lloyd 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 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. V. 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 negligence 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 negligence." 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 negli gence 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 heading, "measure of care required," subhead, "-reasonable care." Still others, apparently coinciding in Lord Cranworth's view that gross negligence is merely negligence with the addition of a vituperative epithet, define it as a failure to exercise ordinary care. See cases infra, under heading, "Measure of care required," subhead, "-ordinary care." Propriety of distinction between degrees of negligence. The controversy as to whether there are, properly, any different degrees of negligence, has extended into the cases involving the liability of gratuitous bailees. In Sherwood v. Home Sav. Bank (1906) 131 Iowa, 528, 109 N. W. 9, it is said that most of the authorities are to the effect that proof of gross negligence is essential to a recovery, in event of the loss of a gratuitous deposit; but that the classification of negligence as "slight," "ordinary," and "gross" has been quite generally abandoned, and a more rational view adopted. And in Cannon River Mfrs.' Asso. v. First Nat. Bank (1887) 37 Minn. 394, 34 N. W. 741, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 531, it was said that it is not easy, nor again really profitable, to define or point out the somewhat hazy distinction between the several degrees of diligence. And in Booth v. Litchfield (1909) 62 Misc. 279, 114 N. Y. Supp. 1009, affirmed without opinion in (1909) 134 App. Div. 955, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1095, the court, in approving an instruction making the exercise of reasonable care in the protection of the property, in view of all the circumstances, the measure of the duty of a gratuitous bailee, said that it was not necessary to deny as an abstract proposition that a gratuitous bailee is liable only in the event of gross negligence, but that however useful the expressions, "slight," "ordinary," and "gross negligence," may have been for the purpose of academic discussion, they have been found wanting and have broken down when an attempt was made to make use of them practically, before juries. 4 A.L.R.-76. On the other hand, in Giblin v. M'Mullen (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. (Eng.) 317, it is said: "From the time of Lord Holt's celebrated judgment in Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 92 Eng. Reprint, 107, 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 247, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 948, in which he classified and distinguished the different degrees of negligence for which the different kinds of bailees are answerable, the negligence which must be established against a gratuitous bailee has been called 'gross negligence.' This term has been used from that period, without objection, as a short and convenient mode of describing the degree of responsibility which attaches upon a bailee of this class. At least, Lord Cranworth (then Baron Rolfe), in the case of Wilson v. Brett (1843) 11 Mees. & W. 113, 152 Eng. Reprint, 737, 12 L. J. Exch. N. S. 264, objected to it, saying that he 'could see no difference between 2egligence and gross negligence; that it was the same thing, with the addition of a vituperative epithet.' And this critical observation has been since approved of by other eminent judges. Of course, if intended as a definition, the expression, 'gross negligence,' wholly fails of its object. But as there is a practical difference between the degrees of negligence for which different classes of bailees are responsible, the term may be usefully retained as descriptive of that difference, more especially as it has been so long in familiar use, and has been sanctioned by such high authority as Lord Holt, and Sir William Jones in his Essay on the Law of Bailments. In the case of Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Co. (1866) L. R. 1 C. P. 612, 35 L. J. C. P. N. S. 321, 12 Jur. N. S. 727, 14 L. T. N. S. 711, 14 Week. Rep. 893, 4 Eng. Rul. Cas. 680, Mr. Justice Willes, after agreeing with the dictum of Lord Cranworth, and stating that the same view of the term, 'gross negligence,' was held by the exchequer chamber in Beal v. South Devon R. Co. (1864) 3 Hurlst. & C. 337, 159 Eng. Reprint, 560, said: 'Confusion has arisen from regarding negligence as a positive instead of a negative word. It is really the absence of such care as it was the |