Lexplug logoLexplug

Buena Vista Loan & Savings Bank v. Bickerstaff

Court of Appeals of Georgia
1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1257, 121 Ga. App. 470, 174 S.E.2d 219 (1970)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The legal relationship between a bank and a customer who rents a safe deposit box is that of a bailor and bailee for hire. Upon proof of loss of the box's contents, a presumption of negligence arises, and the bank bears the burden of proving it exercised ordinary care to safeguard the property.


Facts:

  • A customer entered into a contract with a bank to lease a safe deposit box for a fee.
  • The customer placed personal property, specifically money, inside the safe deposit box.
  • The bank exercised complete dominion and control over the safe deposit box at all times, except when the customer requested access.
  • The customer later discovered that the money was missing from the safe deposit box under mysterious circumstances.

Procedural Posture:

  • The customer (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the bank (defendant) in the trial court, seeking to recover the value of money that disappeared from his safe deposit box.
  • The bank filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
  • The trial court denied the bank's motion for summary judgment.
  • The bank (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to the intermediate court of appeals, with the customer as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the legal relationship between a bank that leases a safe deposit box and its customer that of a bailor and bailee for hire, which imposes a duty of ordinary care on the bank and shifts the burden of proof to the bank to show its diligence upon the customer's proof of loss?


Opinions:

Majority - Jordan, Presiding Judge

Yes, the relationship between a bank and a safe deposit box renter is a bailment for hire, which imposes a duty of ordinary care on the bank and places the burden of proof on it after a loss is shown. The court rejected the bank's argument that the relationship was merely a lease (lessor-lessee), distinguishing a prior case, Tow v. Evans, that dealt with garnishment rather than the bank's duty of care. The court reasoned that regardless of the label, the bank undertook a paid service to safeguard personal property over which it had almost total control, which is the essence of a bailment for hire. Consistent with the law of bailment, once the customer proves a loss, a rebuttable presumption of negligence arises, and the bank must then produce evidence showing it exercised ordinary care. Because evidence suggested the bank's practices fell below industry standards, whether it exercised ordinary care is a question of fact for a jury to decide.



Analysis:

This decision formally classifies the safe deposit box relationship in Georgia as a bailment for hire, aligning the state with the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions. The key legal significance lies in the burden-shifting framework it affirms. By placing the onus on the bank to prove it exercised ordinary care after a loss, the ruling substantially strengthens the position of customers and makes it more difficult for banks to escape liability through summary judgment in cases of mysterious disappearance. This precedent solidifies a bank's role as a fiduciary caretaker of a customer's property, not merely a passive landlord of a metal box.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Buena Vista Loan & Savings Bank v. Bickerstaff (1970)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"