Gilson v. Pennsylvania Railroad
92 A. 59, 1 Gummere 446, 86 N.J.L. 446 (1914)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bailment is not created when a customer hangs personal property on a hook or rack provided for convenience in a business establishment, as there is no delivery of the property or transfer of exclusive possession and control to the business owner.
Facts:
- The plaintiff had been a customer at the defendant's 'quick lunch' type restaurant almost daily for twenty years.
- The restaurant provided clothes-trees for patrons' convenience and had signs posted stating, 'Not responsible for loss of coats, hats, umbrellas,' etc.
- The restaurant's cashier would, if requested, take charge of patrons' overcoats, though the plaintiff was unaware of this custom.
- On December 2, 1913, the plaintiff entered the restaurant and hung his overcoat on a clothes-tree a few feet away from the stool where he sat.
- The plaintiff did not bring his coat to the attention of any of the defendant's employees before it was lost.
- The plaintiff testified that his coat remained within his reach and that he could access it at any time without requiring any action from the defendant's staff.
- After finishing his meal, the plaintiff discovered his coat was missing and that another, well-worn coat had been left in its place.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff brought an action in a trial court against the defendant restaurant to recover the value of his lost overcoat.
- The case was tried before a judge without a jury.
- The trial judge entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant appealed the judgment to the reviewing appellate court.
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 restaurant become a bailee of a customer's overcoat when the customer hangs it on a clothes-tree provided for convenience, without notifying any employee or relinquishing control over the coat?
Opinions:
Majority - Trengxiard, J.
No, a restaurant does not become a bailee of a customer's overcoat under these circumstances. A bailment requires a delivery of the chattel, which transfers exclusive possession and control from the owner to the bailee. Here, there was neither an actual nor a constructive delivery. There was no actual delivery because the defendant's employees never had physical possession of the coat. There was no constructive delivery because the facts do not show an intention by either party to transfer exclusive possession; the clothes-trees were merely a convenience for the patron to use while retaining control of his property. The plaintiff chose to keep his coat under his own control rather than transfer possession to the defendant by, for example, asking the cashier to hold it.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the requirements for creating an implied bailment in a commercial setting, particularly regarding the elements of delivery and possession. It establishes that a business providing a mere convenience, such as a coat rack, does not automatically assume the responsibilities of a bailee. For liability to attach, there must be a clear transfer of control from the customer to the business. This decision places the burden on customers to take affirmative steps, such as using a formal checkroom or handing an item to an employee, if they wish to hold a business responsible for their property.
