Altman v. Aronson
231 Mass. 588 (1919)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gratuitous bailee is liable for the loss of property in their care only for gross negligence or bad faith. Gross negligence is a degree of carelessness substantially higher than ordinary negligence, constituting a want of even scant care or an utter indifference to legal duty.
Facts:
- The defendants purchased seven pieces of silk by sample from the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff delivered silk to the defendants, which the defendants determined did not conform to the sample.
- The defendants immediately reshipped the silk to the plaintiff via an express company.
- When reshipping the silk, one of the defendants' employees stated to the express company that the value of the goods was under $50.
- In reality, the value of the silk was much greater than $50.
- The express company lost the return shipment, and the silk was never delivered back to the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendants in tort in a trial court to recover the value of the lost silk.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that the defendants' liability should be measured by a standard of ordinary negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff (implied, as defendants appealed).
- The defendants appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, arguing the jury instruction was legally incorrect.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury instruction holding a gratuitous bailee to the standard of an 'ordinarily prudent man' correctly state the law regarding their liability for lost property?
Opinions:
Majority - Rugg, C. J.
No. The jury instruction holding the defendants to a standard of ordinary care was erroneous because a gratuitous bailee is only liable for gross negligence or bad faith. The court established that the defendants, in reshipping goods they had a right to reject, were acting as gratuitous bailees. The legal standard for a gratuitous bailee, established in Foster v. Essex Bank, is liability only for gross negligence, which is equivalent to a breach of faith. The trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury to apply the standard of ordinary negligence—what an 'ordinarily prudent man' would do—which is a lower standard of care. The court defined gross negligence as substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence; it is the absence of slight diligence or the want of even scant care. It represents an indifference to present legal duty and utter forgetfulness of legal obligations. While failing to exercise the same care one uses for their own property can be evidence of bad faith, the jury must still be instructed on the gross negligence standard. The question of whether undervaluing the silk shipment constituted gross negligence was a matter for the jury to decide under the correct legal instruction.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the distinction between ordinary and gross negligence in Massachusetts jurisprudence, particularly in the context of bailments. By providing a detailed definition of gross negligence, the court clarifies that it is a higher degree of inattention than simple negligence but falls short of willful or wanton misconduct. This precedent reinforces protection for gratuitous bailees, ensuring they are not held liable for simple errors or inadvertence. It requires plaintiffs in such cases to meet a significantly higher burden of proof, thereby influencing litigation strategy and the assessment of liability for anyone holding property for another without compensation.
