Low v. Park Price Company
95 Idaho 91, 503 P.2d 291, 11 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1041 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a bailment for hire, once the bailor establishes that property was delivered to the bailee and not returned or returned damaged, the burden of persuasion shifts to the bailee to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the loss was not due to the bailee's negligence.
Facts:
- Cal Dale Low, son of plaintiff Dale K. Low, brought Low's car to the defendant, Highway Motor Company, for repairs.
- To perform the repairs, Highway Motor Company's employees removed the car's engine.
- Highway Motor Company then stored the car, without its engine, in an unfenced area located between the garage and an adjacent street.
- While the vehicle was stored in this location, its transmission was stolen.
- Highway Motor Company informed Low of the theft but disclaimed any obligation to compensate him for the loss.
Procedural Posture:
- Dale K. Low sued Highway Motor Company in Idaho district court, alleging conversion and negligence.
- The parties stipulated that the reasonable market value of the lost transmission was five hundred dollars.
- Following a nonjury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, Highway Motor Company.
- The plaintiff, Dale K. Low, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a bailment for hire, does the bailee have the burden of proving that the loss of the bailed property occurred without the bailee's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Donaldson, Justice
Yes, in a bailment for hire, the bailee has the burden of proving the loss of bailed property occurred without its negligence. The court resolves conflicting Idaho precedents by holding that the bailee, who has exclusive possession and control over the property, is in a superior position to know and present evidence regarding the cause of the loss. This rule aligns with public policy, promotes uniformity with the Uniform Commercial Code's provisions on warehousemen, and incentivizes bailees to exercise ordinary care. Although the bailee has this burden, Highway Motor Company met it in this case by showing its storage practices conformed to local custom. Because Low, the bailor, offered no evidence to show this custom was unreasonable, the bailee's evidence was sufficient to prove its freedom from negligence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies bailment law in Idaho by resolving contradictory precedents and establishing a clear, pro-bailor burden-shifting rule. By placing the burden of persuasion on the bailee, the court protects consumers who entrust their property to businesses for service or storage, as they often lack access to evidence explaining a loss. This precedent makes it easier for bailors to recover for lost or damaged property and incentivizes commercial bailees to adopt safer practices and procure insurance. However, the ruling also affirms that adherence to industry custom can create a strong, though not conclusive, inference of due care that a bailor must overcome with contrary evidence.
