York v. Jones - 717 F. Supp. 421 (E.D. Va. 1989)

Rule:

Under Virginia law, no formal contract or actual meeting of the minds is necessary to create a bailment. Rather, all that is needed is the element of lawful possession however created, and duty to account for the thing as the property of another that creates the bailment. The essential nature of a bailment relationship imposes on the bailee, when the purpose of the bailment has terminated, an absolute obligation to return the subject matter of the bailment to the bailor. The obligation to return the property is implied from the fact of lawful possession of the personal property of another.

Facts:

The plaintiffs, Steven York, M.D. and Risa Adler-York (the Yorks), were the progenitors of the cryopreserved human pre-zygote at issue in the present case. The plaintiffs sought the release and transfer of the pre-zygote from the defendant The Howard and Georgeanna Jones Institute For Reproductive Medicine (Jones Institute) in Norfolk, Virginia to the Institute for Reproductive Research at the Hospital of the Good Samaritan located in Los Angeles, California. The defendants have refused to consent to an inter-institutional transfer of the pre-zygote. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit against defendants, alleging breach of contract, quasi-contract, detinue, and 42 U.S.C.S.§ 1983 violation. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants’ continued dominion and control over the frozen pre-zygote was contrary to the language of the Cryopreservation Agreement. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

Issue:

Did the plaintiffs’ complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, thereby warranting the grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the husband and wife's complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court noted that the Cryopreservation Agreement created a bailor-bailee relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants. While the parties in this case expressed no intent to create a bailment, under Virginia law, no formal contract or actual meeting of the minds was necessary. Rather, all that was needed was the element of lawful possession however created, and duty to account for the thing as the property of another that created the bailment. The essential nature of a bailment relationship imposed on the bailee, when the purpose of the bailment has terminated, an absolute obligation to return the subject matter of the bailment to the bailor. The obligation to return the property is implied from the fact of lawful possession of the personal property of another. In the instant case, the requisite elements of a bailment relationship were present. According to the court, the failure of the human research review committee to consider the ramifications of the inter-institutional transfer of cryopreserved human pre-zygotes did not vitiate the parties' Cryopreservation Agreement; thus, Count I of plaintiffs’ complaint stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Count III of plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged a cause of action in detinue. The requisite elements of a detinue action in Virginia were: (1) plaintiff must have a property interest in the thing sought to be recovered; (2) the right to immediate possession; (3) the property is capable of identification; (4) the property must be of some value; and (5) defendant must have had possession at some time prior to the institution of the act. Moreover, if the property was in the possession of a bailee, an action in detinue accrued upon demand and refusal to return the property or upon a violation of the bailment contract by an act of conversion. Analyzing plaintiffs’ Complaint vis-à-vis the requisites, the court held that it properly alleged a cause of action in detinue. The court also held that the medical college was not an arm of the commonwealth entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Although the medical college was deemed a governmental and public instrumentality, it nevertheless enjoyed a high degree of autonomy over both its internal operations and in the discharge of the statutory powers and duties conferred upon it. The court was satisfied that plaintiffs' judgment, if any, will not be paid from the state treasury. Accordingly, defendants' Motion to Dismiss was denied.