A bailee's duty for the protection of personal property may arise out of either an express or an implied contract bailment on delivery of the property. Duty and liability ordinarily cannot be thrust upon a bailee without his knowledge or consent.
After appellee owners' car was stolen from appellant parking station, appellees brought action for the value of previously undisclosed valuable personalty contained in the car's trunk. The trial court rendered judgment for appellees for the value of the personalty, and appellant sought review, arguing that the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's finding that appellant had no notice of the trunk's contents.
May parking lot should be held responsible for loss of the patron's property, which was not disclosed to the parking lot upon parking?
The court reversed judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment for appellant parking station. The court ruled that in the absence of notice or a special agreement, appellant was not liable for the loss of appellee owners' articles left in a parked car other than the usual ordinary equipment of the car. The court held that the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's finding of lack of notice to appellant.